Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CARDIFF CITY COUNCIL BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Housing Associations

Mr. Bruce: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to increase funding to housing associations in Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): The allocation given to the Housing Corporation for 1984–85, which reflects the Government's present plans, will enable housing associations in Scotland to undertake a programme in excess of £100 million for the third consecutive year. This is more than three times the expenditure in 1978–79.

Mr. Bruce: I thank the Minister for that information, but I draw his attention to the fact that the Government have cut support for housing in other areas over the last year or two. Does he accept that housing associations have an increasingly important role to play to fill the gap that is becoming apparent with growing waiting lists for council houses throughout Scotland? Will he consider increasing the allocation to housing associations in Scotland?

Mr. Ancram: In terms of the total housing expenditure in Scotland, the proportion that goes to the housing associations through the Housing Corporation is considerable—a policy which the Government have pursued since 1979—and is a reflection of the regard in which we hold the housing associations and the view that we take of their work.

Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the role of housing associations in Scotland has been very valuable, particularly in fulfilling special needs which local authorities were slow to observe, such as housing for the elderly? Will he concentrate the resources available to housing associations on that area of special need?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the work that has been done in this area. As he may know, the expenditure of housing associations is divided between rehabilitation and new build housing, with an overall commitment on the basis of a 60:40 ratio between the two. This reflects the point that he made.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that, because of Government cuts, three Scottish local authorities are ceasing to provide financial support for the warden services in sheltered housing operated by housing associations? As a result, 2,500 old people will have to pay increased rents of between £3 and £6 per week. Will the Minister tell us what action the Government will take to sort out the matter?

Mr. Ancram: As the hon. Gentleman knows, various housing benefits are available to cover people on low incomes. If he refers to the written question that he asked and to the answer that I gave, I think he may see that that is the case. In relation to the particular points that he has raised, my understanding is that the situation is not yet definite. Indeed, in the case of Lothian region, my understanding is that the decision has already been changed.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that a substantial number of houses have been built by housing associations in North Tayside and they wish to place on record their thanks on behalf of the substantial number of disabled people who are occupying those houses and are no longer a problem for the health department in the area?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is worth pointing out that the Housing Corporation plans to spend 40 per cent. of its allocation for the current financial year on special needs housing—that is £36·86 million. Of that, £5·81 million has been set aside for housing the physically disabled and the mentally handicapped.

Mr. Craigen: Will not the imposition of VAT on building alterations produce a real cut in the money allocated to housing associations? Will the Minister give early consideration to my recent proposals for a housing-employment link programme to compensate housing authorities which have rehabilitation programmes in hand?

Mr. Ancram: It is for the Housing Corporation to consider whether any adjustment needs to be made to its programme as a result of the announcements in the Budget. However, in view of the line taken by the hon. Gentleman, it is worth remembering that the Government have provided more than £100 million a year in the past three years to the Housing Corporation. That compares favourably with the record of his Government who, in their last three years of office, provided £16·3 million, £27 million and £31·4 million respectively.

Drug Addicts

Mr. David Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the percentage increase in the number of registered drug addicts in Scotland since 1978; what is his estimate of the increase in drug taking in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): The numbers formally notified to the Home Office as being addicted to narcotic drugs was 85 in 1978 and 574 in 1983—an increase of 575 per cent. Research has suggested that the actual numbers may be about fives times the number of formal notifications.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister not horrified and ashamed at those figures, which are a terrible indictment


of the Government? Is he aware of the excellent campaign being waged by the Daily Record, and did he see its editorial on Thursday? Will the Government take positive action, by restoring many of the 1,000 redundant Customs and Excise officers to their posts and by introducing harsher penalties on the evil people who trade in drugs, including confiscation of their profits and assets?

Mr. MacKay: I am sure that every hon. Member is horrified by the figures and the increase in drug addiction, not only in this country, but throughout western Europe. I welcome the campaign that the Daily Record has waged and I hope that it brings home to young people, especially, and to their parents, the utterly self-destructive course on which they set themselves if they take drugs. I hope that those who over the years have stylishly advocated the drugs scene as something intellectual and clever are thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that the police will be able to catch many more of the evil men who indulge in this trade, and hope that the courts will deal with them severely.

Mr. Hirst: Is my hon. Friend aware that the measures which he announced this week to fund projects to help those involved in the misuse of drugs have been widely welcomed in Scotland? However, is he also aware that the chief constable of Strathclyde stated recently that Glasgow was the second centre for heroin in the United Kingdom? Will my hon. Friend have urgent discussions with his ministerial colleagues to find ways of reducing the supply of heroin? Is a contributory cause of the upsurge in heroin supplies the reduction in the number of Customs and Excise staff?

Mr. MacKay: The size of the special investigations branch of the Customs and Excise, which is directly concerned with this matter, has been increased over the past few years, so I do not think that one can look to the Customs and Excise for a reason for the increase. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about the £500,000 that I have announced will be given to 13 projects, mostly in Strathclyde and Lothian, to help those who are addicted to drugs. It is extremely difficult to get people off the heroin habit, but I hope that the projects will succeed and that, with the help of action by the police and other authorities, we shall be able to curb this appalling trade.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the investigation of this problem—apart from the chicken-feed that he is giving for those who are already hooked on the drug? Drug taking is not inevitable. Do the Government not have a responsibility to find out why it is taking place? There is ample evidence in other countries. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that Scotland should tail on after other countries which have millions of young people on the habit?

Mr. MacKay: The United Kingdom and other countries are looking at what causes addiction, not just to drugs, but to other things. I readily accept that drug addiction is very dangerous. We look at all the evidence, not only in our country, but throughout the world, to try to discover why people become addicted. I think that some of the remarks that I made at the beginning are relevant. Over the last decade or two some people have suggested that being on soft drugs is the clever Dick thing to do. However, the one leads to the other and we should be

against the whole drugs scene. I hope that all those in responsible positions in this House will join me in that condemnation.

Mr. Corrie: Does my hon. Friend agree that people are now becoming hooked on drugs at a very early age? Does he receive any reports on what is happening in schools? Will he consider going so far as to carry out a survey to see how serious the problem is among very young people?

Mr. MacKay: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for education, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), heard that request. When considering drug dependence, schools and education authorities look at the problem, among other things, of how to get the message about drugs over to youngsters. However, as with all these things, the difficult choice is between telling children about it and so exposing some of them to a problem which they would never have found out about and educating those who are likely to fall for it.

Mr. Martin: Surely the Minister cannot give himself a pat on the back just because he has announced to a press conference that he is to spend about £500,000 on 13 projects. When that is averaged out, it amounts to about £43,000 per project. That is a derisory sum, given that the drug pushers in Scotland make more money in a week than he is prepared to put in. What is the Secretary of State going to do about training in the Health Service, given that he is prepared to spend only £15,000 on one project that involves training, and expert training at that?

Mr. MacKay: I cannot agree that £500,000 this year is chicken-feed. It is a three-year programme for £1·5 million, which is a substantial amount of money, to spend on those projects. We are spending more than £100,000 per year on the project at the Southern General in Glasgow. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not welcome the news that we are taking such positive steps, instead of apparently condemning what we are doing.

Mr. Maclennan: It is easy to condemn drug taking, as the Minister has done, but why has he not condemned the increased availability of hard drugs? What steps are the Government taking to increase the resources of the police in order to stop this trafficking?

Mr. MacKay: I thought that I condemned fairly loudly and clearly the evil trade in such drugs. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will speak to his other pals in the alliance about the motion at their conference suggesting the legitimisation of some drugs. We might get somewhere if such nonsense did not come up in public. The Government are giving full support to the police in Scotland, who have set up drug squads to try to rout out this evil problem. As I have said, the Government—if not the Liberal party—are behind that move.

Mr. O'Neill: We welcome the announcement as far as it goes, but we are concerned that the length of time is only three years and that within that period there may well be a further increase in drug addiction in parts of Scotland that are not covered by the projects. We ask the Minister not to close the door. We are not among the sponsors of the so-called drug culture which he seeks to accuse his erstwhile political colleagues of sponsoring.

Mr. MacKay: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support of the points that I made about this dangerous


practice. Of course I am aware that the pattern may change during the next three years. I shall be very sympathetic towards any projects that are proposed to deal with that changing pattern. At the end of the three-year period we shall look very keenly at the results of the programme and will consider what to do thereafter.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed a good run on this question, which I know is of great importance. We must proceed more rapidly. I ask for shorter supplementary questions, and perhaps even shorter answers.

Ravenscraig and Gartcosh

Mr. Tom Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish Trades Union Congress and other Scottish bodies about the future of Ravenscraig and Gartcosh.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I have received no representations on this matter since last autumn.

Mr. Clarke: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity, especially in view of the worry about the redundancies announced last week in the tube division in Lanarkshire, to confirm the excellent productivity record of Gartcosh and Ravenscraig during the past year? Will he reciprocate the efforts of the steel workers by taking this opportunity to make an optimistic statement about the future of both plants?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said. I have been greatly encouraged by the productivity improvements that have been achieved recently at Ravenscraig and Gartcosh. I am glad that they are receiving supplies of coal. It is extremely important that that supply should continue.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Secretary of State accept that the Opposition also welcome the sensible co-operation between the unions about supplying coal to Ravenscraig? That action reflects the anxiety about Ravenscraig's central position in the future of the Scottish economy. In those circumstances, and recognising that there are uncertainties and rumours about the plant and the limited guarantee that has been given about its future, will the right hon. Gentleman go along with me in saying that, in view of the large reductions in steel capacity, there is now no case for the closure of a major steel plant in any part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said. As he will know, on a number of occasions at meetings of the Council of Ministers my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made it clear that we consider that, if reductions in capacity are needed on a European basis, that matter ought to be tackled by our partners in the Community, who have been much less affected than Britain in that respect.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the threat to Ravenscraig has been brought about by the industrial problem in the coalfields? Until that matter is resolved, Ravenscraig will be threatened. Every effort should be made, especially by the Labour Front Bench, to resolve that problem.

Mr. Younger: I repeat that the fact that supplies are getting through to Ravenscraig is of great importance. The

British Steel Corporation is considering various options for the future, and before long will present them to the Government.

Compensation Claims

Mr. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what disciplinary action was taken, and what new procedures have been instituted in the Scottish Development Department following the report, No. C.828/81, by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of the results of his investigation into a complaint by Messrs. James Macpherson and John Donald Macpherson, Lairgandour, Daviot, Inverness.

Mr. Ancram: The staff concerned have been made fully aware that Ministers and the Department regard their handling of this case as falling clearly below the standards required of them. A new manual of guidance issued to all resident engineers codifies instructions for dealing with claims. When dealing with third-party claims my Department now sets up three-cornered discussions with the contractors and the agents where this is desired by the parties. All staff have been reminded of the need to handle compensation cases swiftly and flexibly.

Mr. Johnston: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he agree that this case, which involved his Department's refusal to pay compensation to my constituents over a period of four years, revealed a serious lack of political control, especially by the two previous Ministers, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that were it not for the existence of the Parliamentary Commissioner it would have been impossible for my constituents, or myself as their elected representative, to do anything about that matter? Will he promise to write to me to explain the details of those changes? Will he apologise to my constituents for the serious inconvenience they suffered?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Parliamentary Commissioner was asked by my Department to convey the Department's apologies. If any further apology is needed, I gladly offer it. A finding by the Parliamentary Commissioner is a grave matter and is taken seriously by my Department. That is why the new arrangements have been made.

House Condition Survey

Mr. Wallace: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations have been made to him, since 1981, calling for a housing condition survey in Scotland.

Mr. Ancram: My right hon. Friend has received representations on this subject during the last three years from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Local Authorities Special Housing Group, Strathclyde regional council and Shelter.

Mr. Wallace: In the light of those representations, will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State reconsider the reluctance of the Scottish Office to implement such a housing condition survey? Is it a fact that the Scottish Office is reluctant to take that action for fear that the survey might show up the ever-increasing gap between the need to have substantial sums of money to improve


Scotland's housing stock, especially in the public sector, and the ever-diminishing sums which the Government are making available to local authorities for that purpose?

Mr. Ancram: It is for precisely the opposite reason that a sample of a similar percentage of the housing stock as that used in the English housing condition survey would not produce information of a similar quality in Scotland. The resources to provide the same level of information could be better spent in other ways to provide more direct information of the type that we need to make our assessments.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: When will the Building Research Establishment's survey on the Blackburn-Orlit houses be published? Can my hon. Friend give an undertaking that if that report shows that there is evidence of deterioration those houses will be included within the framework of the Housing Defects Bill?

Mr. Ancram: I cannot tell my hon. Friend at this stage when we are likely to receive the report from the BRE. Of course, we shall study carefully whatever the BRE comes up with.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister initiate some research in his Department into the number of houses that are likely to be demolished over the next three years as a result of the Government's cutting housing improvement grants and imposing 15 per cent. VAT on housing improvements?

Mr. Ancram: I find that a most surprising remark by the hon. Gentleman, because if he studies the Government's record over the past four years in reducing the numbers of sub-tolerable houses he will find that the numbers are estimated to have been reduced from 126,000 to 81,000. It does not lie well in his mouth, given his party's record, to make such remarks.

Mrs. McCurley: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem with the housing stock in Scotland stems from the design that was chosen for them, particularly by Labour-controlled local authorities? Does he agree that after all these years they should be able to understand the nature and condition of the climate and the types of houses that should be built?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made a good point. It is the Government's intention to consider the quality of the building, as much as numbers. As I said to the Institute of Housing at a recent conference, the days when we need numbers have passed, and the days when we need quality have arrived.

Mr. Ron Brown: Edinburgh's record is a disgrace, bearing in mind that about 12,000 families are on the local waiting list. There is another problem, which is that Provost Councillor Morgan has openly promoted private developments, including Leech Homes, and has even appeared in a special advertising feature in the Edinburgh Evening News. Is that not an abuse of his position as a local representative and a senior citizen of Edinburgh, or is it typical the Tory party generally, with its idea that one goes for the fast buck? While Edinburgh may be Scotland's capital city, it should not be a capitalist city.

Mr. Ancram: I do not see how that question arises from a question on the housing condition survey.

Mr. Henderson: Will my hon. Friend accept that calls for a housing condition survey should not put off action

to deal with dampness in houses, and that a number of the proposals for such a survey seem to have been made in ignorance of what surveys have been undertaken? When will he and my right hon. Friend reply to the Select Committee's unanimous report on that subject?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. It is worth reminding the House that the Committee, in studying the question of dampness and condensation, did not regard the case for a housing condition survey to be conclusively proved, because there are a number of other ways in which the needs can be better assessed. The Government hope shortly to respond to the Committee's report.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Does the Minister recollect that he has received substantial evidence from the Kirkcaldy district council about the complete inadequacy of the Government's financial provision to tackle the problem of non-traditional houses? Why does he refuse to meet us to discuss those matters? How many other authorities is he, in his arrogant way, refusing to meet?

Mr. Ancram: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, following the previous occasion when he asked that question, I arranged for my officials to meet officials of that district council. They have kept me fully informed of the representations made to them by the council. As I have said previously, if it is possible to see whether further allocations can be made, I shall take into account the representations that have been made.

Scottish Development Agency

Mr. Craigen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he is likely to meet the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency to discuss industrial development and environmental improvement in Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. Friend and I are to meet the chairman and board of the agency on 1 June 1984.

Mr. Craigen: Does the Minister agree that, if Glasgow were to be chosen as the location of the 1989 international garden festival, many thousands of jobs could be created in the city and that the prospects for attracting new employment would be greatly enhanced? When the Minister has discussions with the chairman and board of the SDA, will he take up those matters and continue to press the application among his Cabinet colleagues?

Mr. Stewart: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of the garden festival. A decision will be taken later this year on the possibility of holding a third international garden festival. As the hon. Gentleman says, Glasgow is one of the three sites that are the subject of a feasibility study. I can assure him that, if Glasgow were chosen, the SDA would have a major role.

Mr. McQuarrie: When my hon. Friend meets the chairman of the SDA, will he discuss with him the decision on the feasibility study carried out by the SDA in connection with the town of Fraserburgh, in my constituency, where there is considerable unemployment? It was agreed that a scheme would be brought forward to create employment on a project basis to assist rural areas.

Mr. Stewart: I know that my hon. Friend has a close interest in the Fraserburgh project. We have approved SDA involvement of £0·3 million in that major public-private sector venture. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the details of the venture will be announced by the partners, which include Grampian region and Banff and Buchan district council. It will include a development company, a physical works programme and an enterprise fund. The target for the project will be the creation of more than 650 jobs in Fraserburgh over a three-year period.

Dr. Godman: If it is needed, will the Minister bring to the attention of the SDA the assurance given by Trafalgar House to Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry that it will co-operate with the Scottish Office and the SDA in developing the land that is superfluous to the requirements of Scott Lithgow?

Mr. Stewart: I shall certainly do so. The SDA is aware of the Trafalgar House statement. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the SDA has been studying the potential for land development in that area.

River Forth (Safety)

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, when he next meets the Forth Ports Authority, he will discuss safety on the River Forth.

Mr. Ancram: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to meet the Forth Ports Authority.

Mr. Ewing: Will the Minister make plans to meet the Forth Ports Authority in view of the fact that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is about to publish proposals concerning pilotage on the river? Does not the Minister understand that the dangers on the River Forth in relation to Braefoot bay, the nuclear refitting base at Rosyth, the Hound Point terminal, the Forth road and rail bridges and the narrow navigation channels in the river make it very dangerous to relax the pilotage conditions, and that it is right and proper that my constituents in Grangemouth and Bo'ness should be seriously concerned about the dangers resulting from the relaxation of the conditions?

Mr. Ancram: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be dealing with the matter. He has received recommendations from the Pilotage Commission about draft bye-laws for the Forth pilotage district, and he is considering those recommendations in the context of the United Kingdom's pilotage policy.

Business Confidence

Mr. Hirst: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about current business confidence in Scotland.

Mr. Younger: Recent announcements emphasise the investment opportunities which Scotland offers to new and expanding firms and should serve to increase business confidence. The latest two Scottish CBI surveys taken together suggest an increase in authorisations for new manufacturing investment in 1984, which is another encouraging sign of recovery.

Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the recent news of electronics firms setting up in Scotland represents almost a success a

day? Can he confirm that a significant number of United States electronics companies are giving serious consideration to setting up in Scotland, and is he satisfied that the education and training arrangements in Scotland will provide a sufficiently skilled work force for such new companies?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said. I agree that there is no doubt that, as a location for inward investment in electronics, Scotland stands very high. The two projects of National Semiconductors and Shin-Etsu alone will provide more than 1,500 new jobs. Those announcements were made in recent weeks.

Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that, because of the cuts made by the Government in university expenditure, the number of places for electronics engineers in Strathclyde has been reduced this year from 120 to 90? National Semiconductors alone, taken with Inmos, has more than twice oversubscribed the total output of large-scale integration electronics engineers produced in the whole of the United Kingdom. What is the Government doing about the supply of the necessary skilled personnel?

Mr. Younger: The Government are doing a great deal. Not only have we substantially increased the number of qualified engineers coming out of our educational system, but in centrally funded institutions, under the Scottish Office's control, we have held the funding level at a time when many other areas have had to have restrictions on their spending.

Sir Hector Monro: Is my right hon. Friend convinced that the SDA is spending enough of its resources on the rural areas of Scotland, where unemployment and deprivation can be just as serious as in the urban areas, where most of the money seems to be spent?

Mr. Younger: The authority of the SDA covers the whole of Scotland, with no exception. It takes a number of important initiatives in rural areas. I am sure that my hon. Friend will know that there is a special scheme in Wigtown.

Mr. Kennedy: When discussing current business confidence, will the Secretary of State pay particular attention to the present concern in the Easter Ross area and the Highland region over the changed structure that he proposes for regional development grants, which could affect a major industrial initiative such as the Highland hydrocarbon project, about which I have written to the Minister responsible for industry? Will he take every step to ensure that when the new regional development grant structure is introduced, such projects that have business backing and will create jobs in a severely depressed area are given every possible support?

Mr. Younger: We shall do all that we can to ensure that any change in regional policy still leaves Scotland with a strong pool for inward investment. With regard to large projects with high capital costs and a low number of jobs, it is common ground between all parties in the review that we should aim to get better value for money where we can.

Mr. Dewar: Does the Secretary of State accept that for the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) to talk about the Government's economic policy as a success a day is laughable, when the truth is that almost


350,000 Scots are in the dole queues, company failures are occurring at a frightening rate and there is a real question mark over the future of a large number of our basic industries? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the greatest boost that could be given to business confidence would be a change in this thrawn Government's economic policy?

Mr. Younger: I should have thought that we gave the greatest possible boost in one sense recently, in abolishing at last the tax on jobs which the Labour Government imposed, which undoubtedly discouraged employment. The hon. Gentleman's description of the Scottish economy is totally distorted. Everyone knows that encouraging inward investment is taking place. The Scottish CBI survey in January showed a sharp improvement in business confidence in Scotland, with a positive balance of 13 per cent. of respondents reporting that they were optimistic about the future. The hon. Gentleman would do well to recognise that fact and try to help, if he can.

Lanarkshire (Job Prospects)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency to discuss the job prospects for Lanarkshire.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen). Job prospects for Scotland in general as well as for particular areas will no doubt feature in the discussions on 1 June.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Minister accept that there is recognition of the work that he has done to retain the Terex factory taken over by General Motors? We are magnanimous in thanking him for that. However, does he recognise that Lanarkshire is now designated as an industrial desert? Will he talk to the chairman of the SDA with a view to getting factories built and getting the unemployed people in the construction industry back to work and, subsequently, when the factories are built, getting people into production, the revenue for which could come from North sea oil?

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about Terex, and I am sure that he would be the first to agree about the important role played by the shop stewards and the trade union officials in achieving the success of that company. As to the SDA in Lanarkshire, it realises the priority that Lanarkshire deserves through the integrated projects at Motherwell and Coatbridge, which together have budgets totalling over £80 million, and the agency support for the Lanarkshire industrial field executive and the Motherwell enterprise trust. Of course, we have been discussing these matters with the agency.

Imported Eggs (Health Risks)

Mrs. McCurley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will assess the risk to animal health in Scotland of the inclusion in imported eggs of ones which are cracked or damaged; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John MacKay: Extensive veterinary experience is that with the proper safeguards, such as we have, there are no animal disease risks from eggs; cracked eggs carry no additional risk.

Mrs. McCurley: I thank my hon. Friend for his seasonable comments in reply to my question. Are there not two distinct problems? We are worried about the introduction of Newcastle disease into Scotland and one way this can happen, I am reliably informed, is through cracked eggs, of which each consignment can have a 4 per cent. allowance, which is contrary to EEC regulations. The other problem which I have come across recently is that there are no regulations governing permanent traps for pigeons in feedstores and feedshops.

Mr. Canavan: Give her an Easter egg.

Mr. MacKay: When the eggs come from countries with a history of Newcastle disease, each consignment must be accompanied by a health certificate signed by a veterinary official of the country of origin, guaranteeing freedom from the disease in the consignment. We have no evidence that suggests that Newcastle disease has any chance of coming into the counry through eggs.

Mr. Allen Adams: One cannot make omelettes without cracking eggs.

Mr. Foulkes: Cheep, cheep.

Mr. Adams: Does the Minister agree that it is ludicrous for one of his hon. Friends to ask a question about cracked eggs when in the Renfrewshire area that she represents there are pockets of 60 per cent. unemployment and an average of——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a good try, but it is not on.

Civil Defence (Clydesdale)

Dame Judith Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what planning assumptions he has asked Clydesdale district council to meet his requirements of civil defence preparations in the event of nuclear war.

Mr. George Younger: Certain planning assumptions were contained in my Department's circular ES(Scot) 1/1982, a copy of which is in the Library. We hope to issue more detailed assumptions later this year.

Dame Judith Hart: Do the present assumptions, and will the more detailed assumptions, include a clear estimate of the number of megaton bombs likely to fall in the west of Scotland, where they would fall, what the direction of the wind would be, what percentage of survival there would be and what the availability of food and medical supplies would be, or is the revelation of such assumptions too much to expect my constituents to take?

Mr. Younger: It is a little difficult to expect us to be in the confidence of any potential aggressor and therefore to know where the target areas will be. It is the responsibility of all of us, whether we are in central Government or local authority, to do everything humanly possible to ensure the safety of our population in any way that we can. That is what this planning is aimed at.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that nuclear weapons falling on Lanarkshire, or anywhere else, would come in a variety of sizes and shapes, and that some of the nuclear weapons do less damage than conventional bombs?

Mr. Younger: I think we would all agree—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has a definitive reply to that question.

Mr. Younger: I doubt whether this is a laughing matter. The advent of any nuclear weapon in any part of the country would be disastrous, and that is why the policies of this Goverment, and, I hope, any other, are outstandingly devoted to preventing it ever happening.

Mr. Buchan: Does the question from the Minister's defence spokesman, the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), not suggest that the problem of the Tory party in Scotland is not so much cracked eggs as cracked defence spokesmen? Is it not the case that the safest measures the Government could take would be to say no to cruise and to Trident and to remove the American nuclear bases from the Clyde?

Mr. Younger: I am sorry to tell the hon. Member that if I could think of a quicker way of ensuring that we were in greater danger from nuclear attack, that would be it.

Small Businesses

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance is now available to small businesses in Scotland from European Community sources; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Both the Government and the European Community attach a high priority to support for small businesses, and the wide range of European Community support includes loans, available throughout Scotland, to help small firms create and safeguard employment, and grants from the European social fund for firms which recruit those currently unemployed. In addition, we have used grants from the non-quota section of the European regional development fund to create for small firms in Strathclyde the better business services scheme, which is unique in Europe. The scheme is aimed at improving the business performance of small firms and I am delighted to announce that there have been almost 1,000 applications from companies in the first five months of its operation.

Mr. Henderson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that there is a European Coal and Steel Community project for Fife as well as for Strathclyde? Can he clarify whether that scheme applies to the whole of Fife and for a wide variety of companies of all sizes, and that although the jobs that may be supported through loans from that scheme must potentially be available to ex-miners, that does not necessarily mean that they have to be filled exclusively by ex-miners?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, I can confirm that. I discussed the inclusion of Fife with Commissioner Giolitti last November. He has confirmed that Fife is included in the ECSC scheme. On the second point, the employment of ex-miners is not a prerequisite, but the employment of ex-coal and steel workers is naturally considered a priority.

Mr. MacKenzie: Is the Minister aware that the best assistance that small firms can get is orders from large companies? The orders are not forthcoming because of the high number of closures in Scotland at present. Will the Minister look at the small firms from that point of view?

Mr. Stewart: I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Government regard the encouragement of small firms

as an absolute priority and that more than 100 new measures have been introduced. Of course the general economic climate and the orders that flow from it are of great importance, but we now have a combination of steady growth and low inflation, which are the basis for sustained expansion.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend reconsider the decision to award European assistance only in assisted areas? Is he aware that, for instance, forestry expansion often takes place in non-assisted areas and deserves assistance from Europe?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend refers to the conditions of ERDF support, but I must emphasise to him that there is a wide range of European Community support, as I have said, and much of it is available to his constituency.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware of the significant success achieved by East Lothian district council with its small business assistance scheme, which has created a significant number of jobs for as little as £500 per job, which is considerably cheaper than some national schemes? Why have the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister responsible for trade and industry refused even to discuss that scheme with the district council?

Mr. Stewart: I am, of course, aware of the scheme to which the hon. Member has referred. The point is that it is important that the different schemes provided by different parts of the public sector do not conflict and overlap.

Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that his Department should be working with the EEC to toy to ensure that small businesses survive? Is he aware that while we get many good figures from the Government about small businesses being founded, they fail to tell us that nine out of 10 of them collapse within the first year? Does he agree that what are urgently needed are measures to enable small businesses to survive and develop, and a little understanding by the party of big business about how small business works?

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Member understood anything about the economy in which we live, he would know that it is always the case that small businesses start up and expand, and that some inevitably go out of business. The Scottish economy is now benefiting from Government policies which create the environment favourable to the expansion of small businesses and the creation of new small businesses.

Land Use

Mr. O'Neill: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will be meeting the chairman of the Forestry Commission to discuss land use in Scotland.

Mr. John MacKay: My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Forestry Commission from time to time to discuss a range of topics, including land use. No date has been set for their next meeting.

Mr. O'Neill: When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of the Forestry Commission, will he ensure that all practical—and, if necessary, legislative—steps are taken to ensure that the Nature Conservancy Council and the Forestry Commission will have powers to prevent


further felling in the Abernethy forest, and that the Earl of Seafield's vandalism will be stopped once and for all and the Caledonian forest protected?

Mr. MacKay: The agreement under which the felling to which the hon. Gentleman referred took place was drawn up in 1980. At that time the convention was that unless the owner agreed to representations being made to a third party, they would not be made. However, since 1981 the position has changed considerably and the Forestry Commission would refuse to give consent to any schemes if consultation with the NCC were not carried out.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

United States Personnel (Drug Offences)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what is the policy of the Lord Advocate towards the prosecution of United States service men for drugs offences committed in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): United States service men have been and will continue to be prosecuted for drugs offences in Scotland where the court has jurisdiction, and particularly where there has been supply to or trafficking with the local community. In lesser offences, including possession, the procurator fiscal may refer the case to the United States authorities for disposal. He must receive a report of the action taken.

Mr. Dalyell: How about amendments to the Visiting Forces Act 1952?

Mr. Fraser: While the Visiting Forces Act 1952 gives the United States authorities an exclusive jurisdiction in certain circumstances, the hon. Gentleman should appreciate that their jurisdiction is not solely dependent on that Act. The principles of international law, spelt out before the second world war, are that, when the naval ships of a sovereign nation are in the territorial waters of another country, the sovereign state that is being visited does not have jurisdiction.

Mr. Maxton: What control does Customs and Excise have over United States ships coming into bases such as Holy Loch and elsewhere in Scotland in regard to searching for drugs? Is the inspection for drugs as slack as it is now in the rest of the Scottish ports?

Mr. Fraser: As I have indicated, naval ships of a sovereign nation such as the United States coming into Holy Loch enjoy a special status while they are there.
The hon. Gentleman should appreciate—I hope that he is not seeking to mislead anyone in the west of Scotland—that if anyone is trafficking in drugs or seeking to supply them to the local community, the procurator fiscal—once such a person comes ashore—has authority and the police have the right to carry out investigations. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands, there have in recent years been successful prosecutions against those who have sought to deal in drugs in Scotland.

Matrimonial Homes (Exclusion Orders)

Mr. Ernie Ross: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what representations he has received recently on

the need to provide a code of guidance on exclusion orders made under the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have received no representations recently. Representations from Scottish Women's Aid have been made to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate about the need for further guidance to the police some months ago.
The Government propose to fund a research project on the operation of the domestic violence provisions of the Act. The results of that should be of assistance in determining whether guidance or other action on the part of the Government is desirable.

Mr. Ross: Surely it would help the operation of the Act if there were a code of guidance and people understood how the exclusion orders work. The Solicitor-General must accept that there is still evidence of instances where the police themselves do not appear to appreciate how exclusion orders are supposed to work. When women who have been assaulted seek to have their husbands excluded, the police then say that they cannot exclude them.

Mr. Fraser: Following the introduction of the Act there was some uncertainty as to how matrimonial interdicts—particularly interim ones—were to operate. However, I gave the hon. Gentleman a written answer some time ago in which I supplied the essence of the guidance and advice that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has given to the police in the operation of the arrest powers that are sometimes attached to the orders. I hope that these powers of arrest are now working satisfactorily, although the number of occasions on which those powers have been attached is still relatively small.

Supermarket Multiples

Mr. Ewing: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what representations he has received concerning criminal deception by supermarket multiples in Scotland.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have received no such representations.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Solicitor-General for Scotland aware that there is a practice, used in particular by Safeway supermarkets in Scotland, of charging customers £1 for parking their cars and then forcing them to spend that £1 while doing their shopping? One of my constituents has complained to me that, as the cost of his purchases amounted to only 60p, he was turned away from the checkout and told to purchase more goods worth at least 40p in order to make up the parking fee. Is this legal? If not, will the hon. and learned Gentleman give instructions or guidance to procurators fiscal to ask the police to investigate the matter?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: This is the first that I have heard of the matter. From what the hon. Gentleman has said, I do not think that it amounts to criminal deception. However, if he wishes to give me further details I shall certainly look into the matter and consider whether any action should be taken. Thus far, however, it seems to me that there has been no criminal fraud.

Mr. Skinner: Do not the Government tend to decide issues about breaches of the peace and the criminal law before they have taken place? Why do the Government not


show the same zeal against the supermarket as against miners engaged in peaceful activities, and make sure——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that matter is related to the question at all.

Legal aid

Mrs. McCurley: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will list his responsibilities regarding legal aid in Scotland.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have no direct responsibilities for legal aid in Scotland.

Mrs. McCurley: Will my hon. and learned Friend exercise his influence in connection with the discrepancies over the way in which legal aid is disbursed in the different parts of Scotland?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: That is not directly a matter for me, although there may be occasions in court when procurators fiscal are involved in the working of legal aid. This is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland. The test to be applied in the district and sheriff courts is whether the granting of legal aid is in the interests of justice. My right hon. Friend's Department has already given some advice to the Scottish courts. There are discrepencies in the practical application, but there is in statute a clear test in accordance with which legal aid should be granted.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Solicitor-General for Scotland consider discussing with his right hon. Friend the possibility of making legal aid available in Scotland to petitioners to the European Commission of Human Rights, in view of the fact that there have been a number of Scottish cases?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am certainly prepared to discuss that matter with my right hon. Friend. There have been a number of cases, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that legal aid is widely available for a large number of matters, and that recently the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), made provision for legal aid to be made available in tribunals dealing with mental health. That was an important move.

Mr. Dewar: Is the Solicitor-General for Scotland aware that there have been a number of statements about the need to economise on legal aid, from Government and ministerial sources? Can the hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that there will be no cut in the range of cases for which legal aid is available and that proper care will be taken to safeguard the right to representation of people who are at hazard in the criminal courts of Scotland?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am somewhat astonished that the hon. Gentleman should make that observation. If he had taken a superficial look at the public expenditure White Paper for Scotland, he would have seen that there has been considerable extra expenditure on legal aid since the Government came to power in 1979 through to 1985–86. It is entirely right that the courts and the Government should try to ensure that people get value for money when using public funds for representation in court. That is the policy we have pursued and will continue to pursue.

Pickets

Mr. Canavan: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what criteria are used in deciding whether to charge pickets in an industrial dispute; and whether any special instructions or guidelines have been issued by the Crown Office to the police or procurators fiscal.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The criteria to be applied in deciding whether to proceed against pickets on criminal charges are the same as those applied in any case where there is an allegation of criminal conduct. No special instructions or guidelines have been issued by the Crown Office to the police or procurators fiscal.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Solicitor-General confirm that secondary picketing is not itself a crime and that, unless an interdict has been granted, any group of workers have the right to try peacefully to persuade their fellow workers to join them in industrial action? Will the Solicitor-General therefore remind the police that it is their duty to try to ensure the freedom of movement of people, without peaceful pickets being subjected to the type of police harassment and intimidation that they have experienced in some areas?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is clearly yes. However, I must remind him that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said,
it is the function of the law to protect the right of every person to make his own decision, free from violence or any other form of intimidation, on whether or not to work. The law permits no interference with that right and recognises no privilege or immunity vested in any person, merely because he is engaged in picketing, to act in a way which constitutes a criminal offence."—[Official Report, 16 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 279–80.]
That is clearly known to the police and I only hope that people who are engaged in picketing in Scotland also recognise that they have no immunity to commit criminal offences.

Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I apologise on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends for our sedentary interruptions which arose because, while Conservative Members and members of the alliance can be called almost at will, it would appear that the only way in which we can be heard, if we do not table a question, is by sedentary interruptions.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to criticise my choice when calling hon. Members, because he has been called no less than twice during questions this afternoon.

Mr. Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is precisely my point. The two occasions on which I have been called have been on my own questions, yet members of the alliance have been called repeatedly. The hon. Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) have also been called repeatedly and——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the House again that I do my best to ensure that as many hon. Members as possible are called during Question Time. I warned the House that we had a long run on question No. 2, on the important matter of drug-taking in Scotland, and that we should have to get on rather more rapidly thereafter. It is simply a matter of judgment as to what is important in Scotland today. I made that judgment today.

Hospital Fire (Port Stanley)

Mr. Michael Stern: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the fire at King Edward memorial hospital, Port Stanley.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House yesterday, the Government were shocked and greatly saddened to learn of the tragic fire at the King Edward memorial hospital early yesterday morning. My right hon. Friend has sent a message to the Falkland Islands Government expressing our deepest sympathy at the loss of life and injury sustained in the fire. My right hon. and learned Friend has also sent a message of sympathy to the Civil Commissioner, in which my right hon. and noble Friend the Baroness Young and I have joined.
The fire started in part of the old wing of the hospital, which was a wooden structure built in 1914. The cause has not yet been established. We are providing experts to assist in the inquiry announced by the Civil Commissioner which will report to the Falkland Islands Government on the causes and other aspects of the disaster. A member of Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services will fly to the islands next week. The timing of the arrival of the civilian firefighting equipment from the town and military equipment from the airport will also be fully investigated.
The question of hospital services on the islands has been the subject of consideration on a number of occasions since late 1982. This has included study of reports which referred to fire hazards and precautions in the hospital buildings. The extent to which the recommendations in these reports were carried out will of course be a priority issue for the inquiry.
Looking ahead, we stand ready to help the Falkland Islands Government in the urgent task of building a new hospital as soon as possible. A hospital architect will travel to the Falkland Islands within a few days. We shall provide the Falkland Islands Government with financial and other assistance in the construction of a new hospital.
In the meantime, the temporary hospital set up in Port Stanley town hall includes the resources of an Army field surgical unit. The Ministry of Defence is also providing, via the air bridge, blood transfusion equipment and other reinforcement for the emergency stores that are already in place on the islands.

Mr. Stern: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the reported conduct of my late constituent, Miss Barbara Chick, in returning into the hospital during the fire in an attempt to save her patients, was in the finest traditions of the nursing service and is deserving of all the praise that this House can give? Would the Minister comment further on the report in today's issue of The Times that Government agencies had more than one year's warning of the appalling fire risk represented by this building and that as of today they are still considering those reports?

Mr. Raison: The House will, I know, entirely agree, as I do, with what my hon. Friend has said about the conduct of Miss Chick, from all that we have heard. May I add that Sir Rex Hunt, the Civil Commissioner, has

spoken on the telephone to the parents of Miss Chick and has made it clear that he and we will give them any help that they desire over the funeral.
On the question of the warning of the fire hazard in the hospital, I have made it clear already that this has been under discussion for some time. We must now await the results of the inquiry to establish the exact facts.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It has not only been under discussion. Could the Minister make contact with George Sturch Edwards and William Burridge, whose addresses I have given to the Foreign Secretary's private office, who are senior electricians and who, along with John Brodrick, pleaded with the authorities on several occasions to take this seriously, especially as they told the authorities that the Army was overloading the electrical wiring system of that hospital by installing extra equipment? Was not this tragedy foreseeable and foreseen, predictable and predicted, and is it not extremely sad that we are spending until 1987, in expenditure already made or committed, £6,000 million on the Falkland Islands, yet there is not enough money to avoid skimping on hospital safety?

Mr. Raison: Clearly, it would be wrong of me to try to prejudge the outcome of the inquiry, but it would certainly seem important that the evidence of the two gentlemen to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred should be made available to the inquiry.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am sure that the whole House will wish to join my right hon. Friend in the sympathy which he has expressed to the people of Port Stanley and in the tribute which has been paid to the gallantry of those involved in fighting the fire. Since the really important thing is that the community in Port Stanley should have a new hospital as soon as possible, and since one of the problems may be the shortage of building materials, can my right hon. Friend say whether he feels that this might be an occasion on which building materials should be acquired on the South American mainland instead of having to be shipped all the way from here?

Mr. Raison: I entirely agree, of course, about the great importance of getting on with this. As I have said already, an architect will be visiting the place within a matter of days. As to the question about building materials, I am afraid that I cannot answer that off the cuff.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Would the Minister convey the sympathy of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties to all those so sadly bereaved? Could the Minister shed any light at all on why it took two hours for the RAF firefighting team to get from the airport to Port Stanley? My recollection is that it should not have taken half that time.

Mr. Raison: The information I have is that it did not take two hours for the RAF firefighting team to arrive, but I really think that that is another matter on which we should leave it to the inquiry to establish the facts.

Mr. Robert Key: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the disaster in Port Stanley had been foreseen, the Government had done all that they could and had indeed projected the building of a new hospital? As I raised this with the Prime Minister yesterday and the source of my information was the doctor running the hospital, who came to see me in the House on 29 June


last year and expressed to me and to other hon. Members her concern about the safety of the hospital, would it not have been reasonable for us to raise the matter in the House? I was told last June, however, that I would be out of order in raising a question about safety standards in the hospital, because it was the responsibility of the Falkland Islands Government. I was thus unable to pursue the matter then. Having said that, however, may I thank the Government for their very prompt response and wish them well in their inquiry, the outcome of which people will await with great interest?

Mr. Raison: Again, I do not think that it is for me to anticipate the outcome of the inquiry. I simply say that the Government will do all in their power to ensure that the inquiry can get at the facts. As for my hon. Friend's parliamentary question being refused by the Table Office, that is not really a question on which I can comment.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: In view of the series of mistakes, some of which have been amplified in the Chamber today, will the Minister confirm that the hospital will be replaced and that there are proper safeguards? Will he ensure that the hospital is built by a British firm? Not so long ago, prefabricated houses were sent there for the troops, built by a Swedish firm masquerading under a British banner. Nobody batted for Britain then——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: —and they finished up costing twice as much.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like it, but he must relate his question to the hospital. It is nothing to do with anything else.

Mr. Skinner: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am asking whether we may be assured that when the hospital is replaced somebody will be batting for Britain. May we have an assurance that the new hospital will be built by British people with a structure ensuring viability? I am not suggesting that it should necessarily be made of cement, but who knows? Will the Minister also make it clear that there will be no need for Mark Thatcher and his mother to go out there to clinch the deal?

Mr. Raison: I shall be very surprised if the hospital is not replaced by a British firm.

Sir Hector Monro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I and other hon. Members spent some hours at the hospital more than 18 months ago and were

immediately impressed by the exceptional nursing care provided by the civilian and military staff and, without the value of hindsight, doubted whether such a tragedy was likely to occur in the near future? Will he make every effort to ensure that the new hospital is built as quickly as possible?

Mr. Raison: I, too, visited the hospital a little over a year ago and was impressed by the care provided by both military and civilian staff. I shall, of course, do all that I can to ensure that the new hospital is built as quickly as possible.

Mr. Donald Anderson: May we first express our heartfelt sympathy for the relatives of those killed in an incident that is the more devastating because of the smallness of the community? Will the Minister reflect on the tragic irony pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), that, although billions of pounds have been poured into the islands to meet the alleged defence needs of the islanders, there is not enough money to look after the welfare needs of those same people?
Does the Minister agree that there is clearly a case to answer in terms of delay, as the fire hazard at the hospital was pointed out more than a year ago? Will he confirm that the Department examined the position last year but that an architect was not to be sent out until after Easter and a new hospital was to be built at an indefinite date in the future? Does he agree that that demands a very clear answer indeed?
If the Minister says that we must wait for the inquiry, will he assure the House that when the report is made it will be put befroe the House in a ministerial statement?
Will the Minister consider the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that in a welfare matter of this kind there may be an opportunity for some form of symbolic co-operation with the mainland? Will he also consider whether there are any other public buildings on the islands which, because they are built of wood, may constitute a similar fire hazard?

Mr. Raison: Co-operation with the mainland raises a quite different kind of question. Our great intention is to get on with the job of replacing the hospital.
As to the inquiry, I understand that the report will be made in the first instance to the Falkland Islands Government, but we shall also receive it. We intend that it shall be published to the House in full, and that it will be treated in a proper way in the House.

Foreign Affairs Council

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Foreign Affairs Council which I attended in Luxembourg on 9 and 10 April. I was accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade.
The Council had a brief discussion on follow-up to the European Council. It was agreed that further work on the text on control of Community expenditure, on which provisional agreement was reached at the European Council, should be remitted to the Council of Finance Ministers. On budgetary imbalances, I made clear our determination to work for a satisfactory agreement. There was, however, no substantive discussion, and no agreement was reached on this occasion. Until agreement is reached on an equitable solution, there can be no question of agreement on our part to an increase in the own resources ceiling.
The President of the Commission made a statement on the financial situation in the Community in which he said that expenditure in the current financial year was expected to exceed the budget provision by about 2·5 billion ecu. The United Kingdom's position on this issue was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in the Agriculture Council on 31 March, and by a formal entry in the minutes of that Council.
The Council resolved the main outstanding difficulties on the proposed common commercial policy regulation. It was agreed that the regulation, along with a package of 15 measures providing common Community safety and technical standards for industrial products, should, be formally adopted, subject, in our case, to a parliamentary scrutiny reserve on two of the directives.
In company with other member states and the Commission, we strongly urged Ireland to withdraw its objection to the conclusion of a further five-year agreement on imports of New Zealand butter to the Community.
There was a discussion in preparation for the forthcoming ministerial meeting on the Lomé convention.
A successful joint meeting with Ministers from the member countries of the European Free Trade Association was held on 9 April, following the establishment on 1 January 1984 of full free trade in industrial goods between the Community and the countries of EFTA.
A co-operation Council with Egypt was held to consider progress and prospects in economic, technical and financial co-operation.
At the ministerial conference with Spain, agreement was reached on some aspects of external relations, and on the issue of patents.
Ministers of the Ten also agreed a statement on recent events in Chile. I am arranging for a copy of this to be placed in the Library of the House. We also discussed the export of certain chemicals to Iran/Iraq in the light of the United Nations Secretary-General's report on the use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that this is the third such statement that he has made in five weeks, and he must be aware that there is a certain weary familiarity about his report that there has

been another failure to agree. Is not the sum of his statement that, in the two Council meetings since the summit, he has achieved no progress whatsoever on the British demands? The Foreign Secretary admitted—I think he will agree that he admitted—that the Community has failed to achieve effective control of its expenditure, and that this year it will be overspent by 2·5 million ecu.
The Foreign Secretary said that the Government had made their position clear in the Agriculture Council. Could I ask the Foreign Secretary to make the Government's position clear in the House? Where is that money to be found from, and can we have his assurance that the Government will not tolerate a raid on the regional and social funds to pay for their failure to achieve effective control of agricultural expenditure?
On the issue of budget imbalances, the Foreign Secretary said that there was a brief discussion. The Foreign Secretary may be aware that this is a matter of some discrepancy in the national newspapers. The Financial Times says that the discussion lasted for 20 minutes, the Daily Telegraph says that it lasted for 40 minutes, and The Guardian says that it lasted for one hour. Can the Foreign Secretary clarify for just how many minutes he managed to focus the minds of his colleagues on the British budget imbalance?
Whichever is the correct figure, will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit that the reality is that this time he could persuade them to deal only perfunctorily with the issue which the Government have elevated to the centre of their negotiations? If the Government do not wish that issue to be dealt with perfunctorily, why did the Prime Minister refuse to see the President of the Community when he was in Britain on Monday, because she was too busy preparing for an interview with Sir Robin Day? Did the Foreign Secretary, as Britain's senior diplomat—if I may be forgiven a hyperbole—find it helpful to hear the Prime Minister on television describe the other nine Prime Ministers of Europe as "tiresome"?
Will the Foreign Secretary accept that the most remarkable part of his statement is the omission of any reference to the 1983 rebate? What is his current estimate of when that rebate will be paid? Does he expect it to be paid by the anniversary of the summit at Stuttgart last June, when it was agreed to? I remind him that he promised that if it was not paid by the deadline of 31 March, he would safeguard the British position. In view of the Foreign Secretary's latest failure, what will he do to safeguard the British position?
Is not the truth that one of the reasons for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's weakness at the negotiations is that, having huffed and puffed about withholding before 31 March, he was seen to back down the moment his bluff was called? Why does he not bring forward a measure to withhold from our 1984 contribution the 1983 rebate which his negotiations have failed to secure for us?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that, despite the quality and style of his running commentary, we are conducting the negotiations with a view to securing a successful conclusion of the negotiations — [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—on the substantive issues and at the time when we reach agreement on those issues. It is for that reason that our attitude towards the so-called withholding question has been as I have described.
It is perfectly right that in the discussions on Monday we were not able to advance those negotiations further on that issue. The discussion took place for something like the middle time of those suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The answer to the point that he raised about the overspending that is taking place on this year's budget is as recorded by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in the minutes of the Agriculture Council. In our view,
expenditure on the common agricultural policy in 1984 must be accommodated within the existing Budgetary provisions. If budgetary problems arise later in the year or in 1985, the United Kingdom considers that the Commission and/or the Council (acting on a proposal from the Commission) should take necessary steps to reduce expenditure to the permitted level.
In fact, the negotiations have been going on through a series of stages and one cannot expect to make progress at each point.
The one thing that is absolutely plain is that the United Kingdom has made very clear, and continues to make clear, our continued willingness to work to bridge the remaining gap, on terms that we can commend to the House.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: On the question of the progress of the Spanish application to join the Community, did my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear that that country cannot expect any further progress while it maintains its present spiteful blockade of Gibraltar?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It has been made very clear that the restrictions on movement that exist between Spain and Gibraltar are incompatible with the obligations that Spain will assume as a member of the Community. Agreement has been reached between the Community and Spain and, in the context of the external relations part of those negotiations, the application of Community obligations means that, from accession, the elimination of all obstacles to trade between Spain and Gibraltar, except as permitted by exceptions and derogations in accordance with general Community law, will take place.

Dame Judith Hart: Will the Foreign Secretary amplify just a little the decision that was reached on Chile? I know that he is putting the relevant papers in the Library, but it would be helpful to know whether there was a strong condemnation of the recent further abuses of human rights in Chile. Did he have any opportunity of discussing with Claude Cheysson, the French Foreign Minister, either in the Council of Ministers or outside it, the mining of ports in Nicaragua and the assertion by the United States of America that it will take no notice of any ruling on that by the International Court of Justice? In that regard, has he seen early-day motion 699 which was tabled last night, and which asks the Government to take intitiatives on that issue in the Council of Ministers?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I believe that the statement of the United States of America about its view of the International Court of Justice had not been made known when we held our discussion about that issue on Monday. I shall, of course, study the terms of that early-day motion, as the subject was discussed between us and may need to be discussed again. I have arranged for the statement and declaration on Chile to be placed in the Library. It makes plain our wish to see an early restoration of civil liberties, the formation of a Government based on free elections,

and our disturbance about the incidents that took place on the eighth day of protest, some days ago. We are fully associated with the statement in the Library.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be general satisfaction at the conclusion of the arrangements for free trade with EFTA? Does that not make nonsense of the claim that one of the drawbacks of belonging to the EEC is that we are flooded with free trade goods from the rest of Europe?

Mr. Robin Cook: We were in EFTA before the EEC.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has nevertheless made an important point. With effect from the beginning of this year free trade in industrial goods has been established between EC and EFTA countries, which is an important enlargement of the concept of free trade.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The Foreign Secretary has made it clear that, in the negotiations, he wants to bridge the gap and reach a fair compromise. Does he define that as the Prime Minister did on television, when on 9 April she said:
I go for agreement—agreement for the things I want to do; consensus behind my convictions.
If that is the basis of the negotiations, and if everybody adopts that view, how does the right hon. and learned Gentleman ever expect a settlement to be achieved?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has quoted a sentence used by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in a much wider and quite different context. In the negotiations, we have been working throughout, and will continue to work, towards bridging the gap in order to reach a conclusion that we can commend to the House and that we can regard as satisfactory to the Community as a whole.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the admiration felt by Conservative Members for the patient way in which he has dealt with the long-term negotiations on the very difficult issues facing him? Is not a respite from the persistent British pursuit of a budget alteration probably wise in the circumstances? What timetable does my right hon. and learned Friend expect to follow if we are to achieve a satisfactory settlement of the budget issue at the next Heads of Government meeting?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said about the general conduct of the negotiations. It is important that we should maintain a combination of firmness and willingness to discuss reasonably. That is what we have been doing throughout the negotiations. I cannot tell my hon. Friend the precise pattern that negotiations will take from now on, because in the course of such discussions openings may sometimes appear either as a result of bilateral discussions or in other ways. I repeat, however, that the United Kingdom is anxious and determined to bring those negotiations to an honourable and satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible.

Mr. Rowland Boyes: Will the Foreign Secretary comment on reports that, because of his recent discussions, the regional and social funds will be plundered to pay for the agreement that he is trying to reach? Does he understand that the British people will interpret that as a further attack on the


unemployed and the poor, as we benefit disproportionately from those funds? Incidentally, have the words "unemployment" and "poverty" been withdrawn these days from Euro-speak by some Commission document? The right hon. and learned Gentleman never bothers to mention them at all.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must know that all the Government's policies and most of the discussions in the Community are directed towards promoting more rapid economic recovery in the Community, including more rapid headway against unemployment. Bearing on that point, one of the most important features is the commitment that has been arrived at in the context of budgetary control to ensure that agricultural spending takes a decrease as a proportion of the Community budget. That is the best foundation for the expansion of policies in which the hon. Gentleman is interested.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the common commercial policy agreement will be widely welcomed by British industry? The Government are to be congratulated on their lead. Will he bear in mind the fact that completion of a free internal market depends upon a simplification of frontier formalities hand in hand with the adoption of the technical directive to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points. The achievement of the agreement on the common commercial policy and the article 100 directive for standardisation of a number of important industrial products represent an important enlargement of export opportunities in the Community for British industries. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of diminishing frontier formalities. That was another of the policies to which we attached importance in our new policies paper. It is another of the policies on which there was agreement at the Brussels summit and to which we shall continue to give urgent attention.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: As the Foreign Secretary is not prepared to say when he expects the rebates to be paid, will he undertake to tell our partners in Europe that, if this money is not repaid by, say, July this year, the British Government will take further steps? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell our partners in passing that we expect interest on our outstanding money as and when it is repaid?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The repayment of our refund would normally have been payable, in accordance with habit and custom, by the end of March. That is set out in

the provisions recorded in the Council's minute of 27 October 1980. That is not the same as a legal requirement. We do not doubt that the money will be paid in due course, and we are determined to achieve that.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some uncharitable people around are saying that the agricultural settlement, such as it is, is not an act of courage but has been forced upon the Community by the ceiling on own resources and that if anyone were to suggest that that ceiling should be increased—whatever the transparent fig leaves in which the members of the Council of Ministers might wish to clothe themselves—the reality would be that agricultural expenditure would take a large slice of that increase in resources? That is a seductive line of reasoning. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend would like to disprove that matter now.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no doubt that the growing or threatened overspend on agricultural policies is one of the reasons that helped to concentrate attention on the need for reform of the operations of the agricultural policy. That must be set alongside the fact that we have now achieved agreement on including in the Community's budgetary procedures specific guidelines requiring growth on agricultural spending to occur at a lower rate than the growth of own resources. That agreement requires Community expenditure to be determined at the beginning of the budgetary year and steps to be taken to guarantee the implementation of those provisions in the Community's procedures. It is of the utmost importance that that should be done in response to the points raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that most hon. Members are not in the least surprised that there has been a further predictable failure? Does he accept that that failure underlines the fundamental incompatibility of the United Kingdom and the present EEC? Does he agree that this aspect underlines the need not to increase the VAT share of own resources? No case can be made for increasing that VAT share.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand why the hon. Gentleman chooses to see the matter in that way. The great majority of hon. Members recognise the importance of the United Kingdom's continued membership of the European Community. They recognise also the importance of the changes being undertaken in these negotiations. It is not surprising that those changes should take some time. It is important that they are achieved, and that is our objective.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. An important Second Reading, a ten-minute rule Bill and points of order are to follow these questions.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Closure)

Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that, just before 2 o'clock this morning, the Government Chief Whip moved a motion to closure the debate on the Finance (No. 2) Bill. The Chairman of Ways and Means accepted that motion, and the motion was put and carried. I seek your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The fact that the Government Chief Whip moved that motion raises a serious constitutional matter. As you will be aware, the Finance (No. 2) Bill is a Ways and Means motion. It is a request from the Monarch for money. The House has the right to decide whether and how it will debate that request. The Government Chief Whip is a paid servant of the Monarch, as are all other Whips and Ministers. That is their position within the House. As such, for the Government Chief Whip to move that motion——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is making a complaint against the Government Chief Whip. I must answer points of order.

Mr. Maxton: This is a point of order, Sir. I am saying that the moving of that motion by the Government Chief Whip is an attempt by the Monarchy to influence the affairs and the debates of the House. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter for you to consider. It raises a serious constitutional issue about the relationship between the Monarchy and the House. We request your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Finance Bill deals with matters of the greatest importance in raising revenue. They are not minor matters, but even if they were this point would still be valid. Yesterday, when those matters were being discussed, the Government attempted—successfully, because of their large majority—to gag the House. The Front Benchers were not able to speak. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) was not able to speak. Surely we are entitled to discuss the Finance Bill at length. The time available to debate that Bill is deliberately not limited, because it raises matters of crucial importance. I have no doubt that by now you know, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday it was not possible to continue with the debate. Not only my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill was denied the opportunity to speak—that was unusual—but a number of my hon. Friends, who believed that important national and constituency issues should be debated, were denied the right to debate those issues because of the actions of the Government Chief Whip. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) made the point that a closure motion on the Finance Bill had not been put in the House since 1925.
I intended no disrespect to Mr. Deputy Speaker. He was faced with a difficult position, which was not of his making. Our complaints were against the Government, not against the occupant of the Chair. Yesterday, I was trying to make the point—I now finally make it—that we wanted to see you, Mr. Speaker, because we believed that the issues were of such constitutional importance you should be brought in. That is why yesterday, during my

point of order to Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suggested that a deputation should ask to see you. I trust that if that had been agreed you would have seen us.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an issue for the Chair to consider. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is right. In the early hours of this morning, a constitutional outrage was perpetrated when the Government rode roughshod over the democratic processes and traditions of the House. There is a strong precedent. A closure motion was last moved on the Second Reading of a Finance Bill on 25 May 1925. That motion was made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Winston Churchill. The motion was opposed by Captain Wedgwood Benn who was then the Member for Leith. Three days later, the House debated a vote of 'censure, tabled by Captain Wedgwood Benn, on the Chair's decision to accept the closure. That was a major constitutional issue.
Last night, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I do not criticise him; he is greatly respected in the House—said that it was for the House to decide whether to continue the debate. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Chair should decide whether closure is to be accepted. We wish to make representations to you on that ground. We want to safeguard minorities in the House—the largest minority, which is the Labour Opposition, and the other minorities. The issue is that on 28 May 1925 the censure motion was carried. If nothing else is sacrosanct, surely "No taxation without representation" is enshrined in our unwritten constitution. I should like a ruling on that point so that it does not happen in the future.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When considering the role played by those in the pay of the Crown, I am sure that you should also consider the role played by the Leader of the Opposition, who is in a similar position.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: In support of the points of order that have been raised and the point of order that was raised in 1925, may I say this we are discussing the protection of minorities, Mr. Speaker. The Front Benches are entitled to speak at length, and they did so in the debate yesterday, but there are numerous minority interests within the country that are not merely confined to political parties but apply to different areas and industries and other minorities on whose behalf hon. Members speak in the House from time to time. The matter was such yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that the voice of those minorities could not be heard on Second Reading. I do not wish to criticise Mr. Deputy Speaker in any way, but it seems that the constitutional point at issue is whether the Government can direct that a debate be closured or whether it is for Mr. Speaker to say. I ask you to say that it is for Mr. Speaker to say, and that last night's proceedings were unconstitutional.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Skinner, further to the point of order?

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you will agree that one of the problems involved in administering justice in this place is that during the past few months at least there has been plenty of evidence to show that a Government with a pretty


large majority, such as this one, can use that tremendous power to trample all over the Opposition. I think that you will agree that that fear was voiced not just by the Opposition but, before the election, by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), who I believe will be taking part in a debate on another Bill this afternoon which will remove power froth local government.
Faced with a majority of nigh on 200, it is necessary that when people read about this place in textbooks and about the almost unlimited power of the Opposition to obstruct legislation, those people who write the academic texts should say that discussion on legislation such as the Finance Bill traditionally is not curtailed by the Government, unless with agreement, when there is an impending election, as once happened not too long ago. It is important that what happened last night should not become part of the Government's tradition—trampling all over the rights of Back Benchers—for the next two or three years. That is why some of us were greatly disturbed that Mr. Deputy Speaker was prepared to accept the closure after about seven hours' debate on the Finance Bill when scores of hon. Members on both sides of the House wanted to take part in the debate. That has not taken place for nigh on 60 years under Labour or Conservative Governments.
In those circumstances, it is necessary for Mr. Speaker to bear in mind that if he wants to maintain the idea that was put forward at the time of his election—the duty to protect minorities—it is more than essential, given the Government's vast majority and their attitude towards curtailing freedoms for millions of people, for Mr. Speaker, not to throw his weight about, but to give the Government a little nudge in the right direction.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, I do not want any more.

Mr. Rob Hayward: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the complaints made by the Opposition about difficulties in speaking not have greater credibility if, according to the Official Report, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) had not

spoken for one hour and 20 minutes, and, according to the Official Report which will no doubt be published tomorrow, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) had not spoken for one hour and 48 minutes?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think we need any more points of order on that matter. I think that I can deal with it. I think that we have had enough of this. We have an important——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. No.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is persisting in what is basically an abuse, but if his point is directly concerned with this matter I will take it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Mr. Speaker, I am not abusing the procedures of the House. I am rising, as is my right, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has just come in. He was not here when the matter was originally raised.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I was otherwise engaged, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask that, when we are discussing the Finance Bill for three days in Committee on the Floor of the House, you take into account what happened last night and perhaps consider sensitively Government applications for closures?

Mr. Speaker: Of course. Let me answer this matter. I have, of course, had a full report from the Chairman of Ways and Means, the First Deputy Speaker, on what happened last night. Had hon. Members wished to see me—I do not say that I would have been all that happy at 2 o'clock in the morning—I certainly was available and would gladly have seen them to sort out the matter. I am entirely satisfied with the line that the First Deputy Speaker took on the matter. I have nothing to add I think that he took the only decision open to him at that time. We must move on.

Scottish Anglers' Trust

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to set up a Scottish Anglers' Trust to administer freshwater fishing rights in Scotland; and for connected purposes.
This is my second attempt to introduce such a Bill. Angling is the most popular sport in Scotland. The Scottish Sports Council estimates that more than 500,000 people take part in it, yet it is perhaps unique as a sport in that if one breaks some of the regulations governing it that can constitute a criminal offence.
Under the terms of the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 there are four protection orders in Scotland covering the rivers Tweed and Eye, the upper Spey, the Tummel and the Lunan. The declared aim of the 1976 legislation was to increase access for anglers, in return for statutory protection for the owners of fishing rights. It was hoped that that would lead to increased opportunities for ordinary people to participate in their favourite sport. Unfortunately, in many cases the opposite seems to have occurred.
The common law with regard to angling in Scotland has caused some confusion, and to clarify the position I should like to quote from a letter written to me in April 1981 by the Lord Advocate. He said:
The common law position in relation to both salmon and trout is that they are not the property of anyone until they are caught. Thus, brown trout in waters not protected by an order under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 do not belong to anyone whilst they are in the water but become the property of the fisherman or person who catches and lands them whether or not that person owns the fishing rights and whether or not permission has been given.
That has led in Scotland to the common belief that there is a right to fish for brown trout anywhere in running water. There is nothing in statute to support such a belief, but, nevertheless, it appears to have been the custom and tradition in many parts of Scotland, and the protection orders which have been granted in recent years are seen as an attack on that right.
Blanket protection has been given over an area covering the major river and its tributaries, in the case of the four protection orders which are already in force. There is only partial or limited access in return for that blanket protection. In some parts of the stretches of water involved there is no access; in others there is a ban on night fishing, weekend fishing, visiting bus parties of fishermen, bait fishing and spinning. There are allegations of disproportionate price increases resulting from the granting of protection orders.
The ownership of fishing rights in Scotland is related closely to the history of land tenure. Very often, the riparian land owner is also the owner of the fishing rights. When I introduced my previous Bill I gave the names of some of the applicants for the Tweed and Eye protection order. Among the applicants were some of Scotland's biggest landowners, especially in the Borders. They included the Duke of Buccleuch, who is a former Tory Member of Parliament, the Marquess of Lothian, whose son and heir has infiltrated the ministerial corridors of power at the Scottish Office, the Duke of of Roxburghe, Viscount Devonport, Earl Haig, the Duke of Sutherland, and Lord Home of the Hirsel, the former Tory Prime Minister. As I said at the time, it is almost like reading a Division list from the other place.
It may be no coincidence that the Minister appointed to be in charge of freshwater fisheries in Scotland is a former Tory Member of Parliament who was rejected at the general election but was rewarded with a seat in the House of Lords. Lord Gray has been put along there to look after the interests of the big landowners, who are also in the other place.
There are no responsible Ministers on the Front Bench just now, perhaps because there is no one in the House of Commons with ministerial responsibility for freshwater fishing rights in Scotland.
The last time that I tried to introduce my Bill I was opposed by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettric k and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the leader of the once geat, radical Liberal party, who rose to defend the interests of the big landowners in Scotland. He used the illiberal and parochial argument that some fishing clubs in his area were getting a wee bit of privilege from the big landowners. The right hon. Gentleman did not want people going from my constituency or other constituencies in the industrial belt of central Scotland to the Borders and enjoying the same access to local fishing waters. I hope that the leader of the Liberal party will adopt a more liberal attitude this afternoon.
Three more protection orders have been granted by the Secretary of State since my previous attempt to introduce a Bill. There is fear of a growing trend of syndicates and rich business men snapping up fishing rights for their exclusive use. Therefore, there is a strong case for new legislation to shift the balance away from the big landowners and exclusive use towards increased access for ordinary anglers.
Under my Bill it would be open to any angler to join an angling club, and it would be open to any bona fide angling club to affiliate to the Scottish Anglers' Trust and to appoint delegates, who would elect the members of the trust. The members would in turn decide the policy and regulations in consulation with local clubs and their members. No responsible anglers want a free-for-all. Most responsible anglers want democratic control of their own sport. The Scottish Anglers' Trust would determine prices, times, places of access, permitted tackle and policy on stocking and restocking. It is high time that Scotland's most popular sport was run by those who take part in it, instead of working-class people being expected at times to crawl on their knees to get permission to fish from the local laird, who often imposes feudal restrictions.
I therefore appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and even in the Liberal party, to support my Bill if they believe in freedom to fish and an extension of the right to fish.

Mr. David Steel: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Do I understand that the right hon. Member wishes to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Steel: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]
I rise to oppose the Bill in my capacity——

Mr. Canavan: The right hon. Gentleman has risen to the bait.

Mr. Steel: I was provoked by the references by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). I rise to speak as the Member of Parliament for the constituency that was the subject of the first protection order.
I have not heard of a case in which a working-class constituent has crawled through the grass to beg for permission to fish in any river. The hon. Gentleman talks nonsense. The fact that it is entertaining nonsense is beside the point. He has just delivered a vicious attack on the Labour Government's legislation, which was perfectly sound and works well. [Interruption.]
The protection orders, which the hon. Gentleman inaccurately described, have provided secure fishing for many people in protected waters. They prevent the anarchy, which the hon. Gentleman seems anxious to encourage, of bus parties from his constituency descending to fish in the rivers which my constituents have tended and stocked. It would be remiss of me were I not to provide the House with an opportunity to defeat this nonsense yet again.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have noticed that we hear many arguments from the leader of the Liberal-Social Democratic party alliance about not being allowed to speak, especially in important debates. When Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means draw up lists of those who have given notice that they wish to speak and consider which of the Social Democratic or Liberal speakers should take part in important debates, it should be borne in mind that the leader of the Social Democratic party often rises to speak on important matters of state, but the leader of the Liberal party is reduced to speaking on fowl pest and salmon fishing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):——

The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 93.

Division No. 244]
[4.27 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Donald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Craigen, J. M.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunningham, Dr John


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Bermingham, Gerald
Deakins, Eric


Bidwell, Sydney
Dewar, Donald


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dixon, Donald


Boyes, Roland
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Dormand, Jack


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Douglas, Dick


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Dubs, Alfred


Buchan, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P.


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Eastham, Ken


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Canavan, Dennis
Ewing, Harry


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fatchett, Derek


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Clarke, Thomas
Forrester, John


Clay, Robert
Foster, Derek


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Foulkes, George


Cohen, Harry
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Coleman, Donald
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald





Hamilton, James (M'well N)
O'Brien, William


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
O'Neill, Martin


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Parry, Robert


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Patchett, Terry


Haynes, Frank
Pike, Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Redmond, M.


Hoyle, Douglas
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Robertson, George


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, J. W.


Kennedy, Charles
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Sheerman, Barry


Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Litherland, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


McCartney, Hugh
Soley, Clive


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Stott, Roger


McKelvey, William
Strang, Gavin


McNamara, Kevin
Straw, Jack


Marek, Dr John
Wareing, Robert


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Weetch, Ken


Martin, Michael
Welsh, Michael


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wigley, Dafydd


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Michie, William
Winnick, David


Mikardo, Ian



Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tellers for the Ayes :


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Mr. John Maxton and Mr. Kevin Barron.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) 


Alton, David
Hampson, Dr Keith


Arnold, Tom
Hayward, Robert


Ashdown, Paddy
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Hind, Kenneth


Baldry, Anthony
Hirst, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Holt, Richard


Beggs, Roy
Hordern, Peter


Beith, A. J.
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Benyon, William
Howells, Geraint


Berry, Sir Anthony
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Latham, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Body, Richard
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Bottomley, Peter
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Maginnis, Ken


Braine, Sir Bernard
Maples, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Meadowcroft, Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Merchant, Piers


Bruinvels, Peter
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Budgen, Nick
Miscampbell, Norman


Burt, Alistair
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Cartwright, John
Mudd, David


Chapman, Sydney
Nicholson, J.


Chope, Christopher
Onslow, Cranley


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Page, John (Harrow W)


Cockeram, Eric
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Colvin, Michael
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Conway, Derek
Pawsey, James

 
Coombs, Simon
Penhaligon, David


Cormack, Patrick
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Powley, John


Emery, Sir Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Rhodes James, Robert


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Farr, John
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Ryder, Richard


Fox, Marcus
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Silvester, Fred


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Ground, Patrick
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)






Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thurnham, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Tracey, Richard



Wainwright, R.
Tellers for the Noes:


Walden, George
Mr. Malcolm Bruce and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Walker, Bill (T'side N)



Wallace, James

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. Bob McTaggart, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Gavin Strang, Mr. Dick Douglas, Mr. Ron Brown, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. David Marshall and Mr. George Foulkes.

SCOTTISH ANGLERS' TRUST

Mr. Dennis Canavan accordingly presented a Bill to set up a Scottish Anglers' Trust to administer freshwater fishing rights in Scotland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 April and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

Orders of the Day — Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill

Order for Second reading read.

Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order is about how the Bill, which the House is being asked to approve, should be treated by the House. It is being asked to give agreement in principle to a Bill that raises fundamental issues affecting 18 million people, about one third of the total population of this country.
The Bill asks Parliament to change existing constitutional arrangements and to approve those changes before Parliament has even been told, let alone agreed upon, what arrangements will replace the democratically elected institutions—the councils concerned. As with the Rates Bill, many hon. Members on both sides of the House feel that the Bill should be discussed here on the Floor of the House, so that every hon. Member may have an opportunity to participate in the debates and represent the views of the many millions of people affected.
I gave notice of my intention to raise this matter now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the outset so that the Government could have an opportunity to make their position clear and we could then proceed to debate the Second Reading. I also make it clear that if the Government do not agree that the Bill should be taken on the Floor of the House, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will ask the House to divide on that issue at the conclusion of the debate. I ask the Leader of the House to make the Government's position clear.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons(Mr. John Biffen): It may be for the convenience of the House if I respond at this stage. I note the representations of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about the handling of the Committee and remaining stages of the Bill. Obviously, I cannot endorse all his arguments—and I do not share his view concerning the constitutional character of the Bill. Nonetheless, this is clearly an extremely important measure and the hon. Gentleman is right to remind us that the House should be able to discuss it in an orderly and reasonable way. Taking the balance between the need for adequate debate and the requirement for progress on the Bill, I am threfore prepared to agree that, after Second Reading, the Bill should be committed to a Committee of the whole House. Arrangements for further consideration can best, perhaps, be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Before I call the Secretary of State, the House will wish to know that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a paving Bill, in the sense that it does no more than pave the way towards the main substantive Bill to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties. That Bill will come before the House in the next Session and it is then, and not today, that we shall face decisions on the main principle of abolition.
Today's Bill is necessary because we need to make advance provision for a number of matters which, if the House accepts the principle of abolition in the later Bill, must be in place before the main Bill could be expected to become law. As a paving Bill, however, it does not preempt next Session's Bill, and later in my speech I shall spell out precisely how this is secured.
Before I do so, however, I must begin by dispelling a myth—the myth that the proposal to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils was dreamed up by the Government a few weeks before the 1983 general election. To listen to some of the howls of outrage from the Opposition Benches, or from some authorities, one would think that, until our manifesto commitment emerged, no one had ever had the audacity to question the existence of these authorities.
The fact is—I say so as a member of the Government that set them up—that the metropolitan county councils have, from their inception, been deeply resented by most of the district councils in their areas. A resolution of the Sheffield city council, passed on 7 October 1975, said:
This Council expresses the very strong view that the present Metropolitan District Councils are fully capable of administering their areas to the benefit of the inhabitants in a more efficient, economic and viable manner than at present.
Its words; our sentiments. Sheffield did not, speak alone. The 1975 resolution was supported by all the metropolitan districts in the west midlands, by all the metropolitan districts in Tyne and Wear and by a number of metropolitan districts in Greater Manchester and elsewhere.
Newcastle upon Tyne went further. The then leader wrote to the then Prime Minister in the following terms:
Newcastle upon Tyne's Policy and Resources Committee have now considered this Sheffield resolution and find themselves to be totally in sympathy with it. My Council believe that the Local Government Act 1974 has created a considerable amount of duplication in Metropolitan areas; greatly increased costs of administrating Local Government services, and in many areas seriously reduced the effectiveness of those services, and I would urge you to give careful consideration to the Sheffield resolution.
The metropolitan boroughs of Sefton and the Wirral took the same view, and as recently as 1982 so did the Liverpool city concil—led at the time, be it noted on the Liberal Benches, by Sir Trevor Jones. I am sure that the whole House will wish him a speedy recovery from his injuries.

Mr. A. J. Beith: rose——

Mr. Jenkin: I shall not give way.
Those resolutions place firmly on record the views that those bodies then held, and which I suspect many of them still hold today. A number of Labour Members also hold the same views. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), as recently as last September, wrote in a west midlands newspaper:
I do not intend to lift one legislative finger to stop the return of single-tier local government to Birmingham—I want

Birmingham government returned to Birmingham. That was the view of all the City Councillors and it was clearly the view of all West Midland MPs before the election.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: What is the relevance of hon. Members' views on single-tier, two-tier, or quango local government to a Bill that bans elections? Just to put it on the record, had the right hon. Gentleman seen the same newspaper last week, he would have seen that I asked how it was that a Government with a massive parliamentary majority would not trust the people, but were bringing in legislation to ban elections. All democrats must oppose this legislation, which is irrelevant to the main question.

Mr. Jenkin: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman has changed the subject.

Mr. Rooker: That shows how weak the Government's argument is.

Mr. Jenkin: I shall come to his point later.
Even more remarkable than my other examples was the phenomenon of the dog that did not bark in the night. At the general election last year, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—I am glad to see him in his place—was the shadow environment spokesman. As far as I can ascertain—I shall give way to him if he wishes to contradict me—there is not one single sentence in any press release that he issued during the election campaign in which he so much as referred to the Conservative manifesto commitment, which included the promise to abolish the Greater Manchester council. Was this perhaps because he had drafted the relevant paragraph in "Labour's Programme 1982", in which was written:
The main difficulties of the present system are clear enough. There is an irrational split of functions between the two tiers compunded by a confusing overlap of responsibilities.
I agree with that.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I was not involved in drafting that paragraph, but I was involved in drafting the Labour party manifesto, which contained no provision for abolishing local authorities. I advise the right hon. Gentleman to consult the Secretary of State for Employment, with whom I had a debate on these matters on television. In that, I made our party's attitude clear. If the Conservative party had gone before the country and said that it would abolish elections for an electorate of 40 million people and asked Parliament to replace the elected authorities by stooge authorities, whose political control would be changed by an Act of Parliament, it would have been a central issue in that election.

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman has also changed the subject. More recently, on 11 February 1983, he had this to say to his party's local government conference:
We shall, therefore, legislate to create unitary district authorities which will be responsible for all of the functions in their area that they can sensibly undertake … we shall set up no more inquiries. We shall legislate.
We have heard much of this story that somehow the idea of abolishing the GLC and metropolitan counties was dreamed up just before the election, but it is not true. That is the case with the metropolitan counties.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: My right hon. Friend has made great play of the metropolitan counties now being deeply resented. Is he not aware that in 1972 three of us who were then leaders of


the city of Birmingham came to see the then Secretary of State for the Environment, now the Secretary of State for Energy, and told him that they were deeply resented, that the proposal was a disaster, and that it would cause only tears? We are now being told that there is a great virtue in our getting rid of what we should not have created in the first place.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend may not have heard me earlier. At the outset I acknowledged fully that I was a member of the Administration that set up these councils. My hon. Friend is entitled to say, "We told you so."

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Jenkin: I am making one simple point: this main, simple proposition has been pressed upon successive Governments ever since then, and this Government have decided to act.
I was asked a moment ago about the GLC. Yes, there was wide support for the GLC when it was brought into existence. I supported it myself and I am on record as having said so. One has to ask: what has happened since then? [Interruption.] I hope Opposition Members will listen carefully, because these are serious arguments. The right hon. Member for Gorton said that this was a most important debate, raising important principles, and I hope that he and his hon. Friends will listen to the arguments.
Many of the original functions of the GLC are now performed by other bodies. Sewerage and sewage disposal have gone to the Thames Water Authority. Ambulances have gone to the National Health Service. Most of the GLC's housing responsibilities have gone to the boroughs. So has much of its planning role. On Monday, this House sent to another place the Bill to establish London Regional Transport and last Thursday both sides of the House gave a warm welcome to the decision to establish a directly elected Inner London education authority.

Mr. Banks: rose——

Mr. Jenkin: One has to ask: what is left? Even before the recent moves, many people in London were questioning whether the GLC really needed to exist. Many of the London boroughs have passed resolutions calling for the end of the GLC and the transfer of its remaining functions to the boroughs.
Nor has this view been confined to Conservatives. There was a debate in county hall on the Marshall inquiry in 1979 when one Labour speaker had this to say:
I feel in a sense a degree of regret that Marshall did not push on and say 'abolish the GLC' because I think it would have been a major saving and would have released massive resources which could have been put into far more productive use".

Mr. Banks: Who said that?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman knows precisely who said it; it was Mr. Livingstone.

Mr. Banks: rose——

Mr. Jenkin: I am not giving way. I ask how Mr. Livingstone can now justify spending million of London ratepayers' money in opposing what he himself advocated.
The proposal to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils has a respectable, all-party parentage. Some of the parents may choose today to disown their offspring but the birth certificates are there for all to examine.

Mr. Banks: Including the Secretary of State.

Mr. Jenkin: The Bill next Session will propose that most of the functions at present exercised by the GLC and the metropolitan county councils should become the direct responsibility of borough and district councils. We see a need for statutory joint boards in the metropolitan counties for just three services—police, fire and public transport—and in London for just one joint board for the fire service.
Arguments on the merits of abolition must await next Sessions's Bill. Although the main thrust of the Government's policy is clear, as I have just confirmed, there is much detail to be settled. I understand the point that is made in the amendment that is to be called later—indeed, the same point is made in the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym)—that we should not pass this Bill until all that detail is before the House. I can give my right hon. Friend and the House the firm assurance that the Government will not make the commencement order for part II of the Bill until the detail is available. Indeed, as I have already assured the House, and I gladly repeat the undertaking again, the commencement order will not be made unless and until the House has agreed the Second Reading of tie main abolition Bill. I stress this because this is a paving Bill and we are not prejudicing decisions on the main abolition Bill.

Mr. Tony Baldry: While some of us are generally supportive of my right hon. Friend's main thrust to get rid of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, and while my right hon. Friend has acknowledged that a principle is involved in that he has given a promise not to introduce the order in relation to the GLC and the metropolitan counties until the Second Reading of the main Bill has been agreed, I do not understand why this legislation could not have waited until after the Second Reading of that Bill. Why could this legislation not have been presented after that instead of before?

Mr. Jenkin: I understand the point. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall come to that, because I know that hon. Members in all parts of the House have been asking that question. Before I deal with that, there are matters arising out of the consultations which it would be right for me to say something about today. I shall refer to a number of items, in no particular order.
The first concerns historic buildings in London. The GLC's historic buildings division is unique. Our consultations have left us in no doubt that its role and its concentration of expertise should be maintained. I can now tell the House that the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission has assured me that if the GLC is abolished it will be prepared to take on the historic buildings division, subject to agreement on finance and other issues.
The second issue involves grants to voluntary bodies, including ethnic minority groups. The White Paper recognised that there would be concern about funding after abolition. It promised that we would consult, and this we have done. In general it will be for the borough and district councils to consider the needs of voluntary bodies in their areas. However, we accept that their efforts, especially in London but not exclusively, may need to be supplemented by other measures. We are considering a number of such measures. I can today announce that it is our intention to include in the main Bill provision for a statutory basis for


collective funding by all the London boroughs or, as the case may be, in each metropolitan area by all the districts. This should ensure that bodies serving the interests of a wider area can continue to look for funding on a wider basis—[HON. MEMBERS: "Another quango."] With respect, it is not another quango; it will be a statutory scheme.
The scheme will enable individual authorities to put forward for agreement proposals for funding particular bodies. If a majority of the authorities in the area concerned agrees, the costs of funding will be shared across the whole of that area. I must make it clear that our proposals are not intended to be a guarantee that all grants now paid to these bodies will continue, because we recognise the concern—felt, I suspect, on both sides of the House and certainly widely in local government—about some of the grants that are currently being made, particularly in London. However, we accept the need to preserve worthwhile voluntary endeavour—for example, in housing and to meet the needs of ethnic minorities and of the disabled.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Many of his hon. Friends feel that in a way this Bill does not go far enough. We have been inundated with expensive glossies from some of these metropolitan organisations and from people who have already got their trotters in the trough and who are all hoping to benefit. They are seeking through publicity, such as the appalling example in today's newspapers, to fight the Government with ratepayers' funds. The Bill contains details on information. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Bill will prevent similar assaults on the Government's policy with ratepayers' funds?

Mr. Jenkin: I think that many ratepayers—I know this from correspondence that I have received—deeply resent the fact that so much of their money is being spent on political propaganda. As for the advertisement with the picture of Mr. Livingstone, to which reference has just been made, let the country remember that he usurped the leadership of the Labour majority on the GLC. [Interruption.] He did that within 24 hours. Nobody elected him to be the leader of the GLC. [Interruption.]
I want to make a third point—[Interruption.] I want now to make a third point about support for the arts, museums and galleries.

Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman accused Ken Livingstone of usurping the leadership of the GLC. He was elected by the members of the controlling group. What is the difference between that and the Prime Minister displacing the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?

Mr. Jenkin: The Labour party went before the electorate of London—[Interruption.] The Labour party went before the electorate of London under the leadership of Mr.—now Lord—McIntosh, and he was out within 24 hours.
With regard to support for the arts, museums and galleries, our White Paper proposed that the boroughs and districts should in general take over the role of the GLC and the MCCs, but we recognised that there would need to be some increase in central funding. Detailed proposals for that were set out in a consultative document.
My noble Friend the Minister for the Arts has had discussions with arts bodies, with local authorities and with many members of this House and of another place. We have listened carefully to the many points that have been put to us. It remains our view that, after abolition, the boroughs and districts should make a significant contribution in this field. I know that many of them recognise the value to their areas, and to their local economies, of a lively arts environment. But the concentration within the metropolitan areas of arts institutions of a wider significance calls for special measures, going beyond those announced in the consultative document.
Therefore, we propose to make additional central funding available. That will be done through the usual channels for performing arts funding—in particular the Arts Council. We do not intend to pursue the proposals for attaching certain museums and galleries in the metropolitan counties to national institutions. Central funding for those will be made available in other ways. My noble Friend the Minister for the Arts will be making a more detailed statement about those proposals later today.

Mr. Norman Buchan: rose——

Mr. Jenkin: With regard to sport and recreation the same considerations——

Mr. Buchan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: No.

Mr. Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman has made an important statement about the arts.

Mr. Jenkin: My noble Friend——

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had a Select Committee established in this House particularly to examine and to take evidence on the matters to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred. It has been concerned with what is to happen to the organisation, control and administration of the arts. It is due to report on Friday——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It seems very clear to me that the hon. Gentleman is making a perfectly valid point but it is not a point of order on which I can rule. The more interruptions we have, the fewer hon. Members will be able to participate in this very important debate.

Mr. Buchan: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have not yet reached what lies behind my point of order. The precise point is that a Select Committee, established by this House, is due to report to it, and its recommendations have been ignored. A decision has been made pre-empting its recommendations. Is not that an insult to the House of Commons, to you, and to——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter for debate and is not a point of order on which I can help him.

Mr. Jenkin: With regard to sport and recreation, in principle the same considerations apply as are relevant to the arts. In general, it will be for the boroughs and districts to take over the responsibilities of the GLC and MCCs. But, as the White Paper recognised, some special arrangements will be needed. Therefore, we shall be introducing proposals for a limited extension of central funding towards some sports facilities events and schemes of wider than local interest.
It is also proposed that the Sports Council's additional funding should enable it to assume full responsibility for the Crystal Palace national sports centre.

Mr. Banks: rose——

Mr. Jenkin: Finally, there are two matters relating to the residual housing responsibilities of the GLC. We fully accept the need for statutory arrangements which will provide for a London-wide mobility scheme. We shall also ensure that the seaside and country homes continue to be available for London's elderly people. We shall be discussing appropriate arrangements with the authorities directly concerned. Several of those proposals will involve a modest increase——

Mr. Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is supposed to be discussing the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, which abolishes the elections. The Secretary of State is making a speech, directed at his own Back Benchers, which refers——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Banks: The Secretary of State is out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know the Bill is of great interest to both sides of the House, but it is very unfair for hon. Members to rise on points of order which are not points of order on which I can rule. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be allowed to get on with his speech.

Mr. Jenkin: I think that I am entitled to point out that the official Opposition's amendment complains that they are being asked to approve the Bill without the detailed arrangements being known, and I should have thought it would be helpful—[Interruption.] I am coming to the elections in a moment. I should have thought it would be helpful to both sides of the House to have the announcement of the decisions. [Interruption.]
Before I come to the Bill, may I make one more point? [Interruption.] A number of the proposals will involve a modest increase in central funding——

Mr. Roland Boyes: We are meant to be discussing the Bill, so the Secretary of State has admitted that he is out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will decide what is out of order.

Mr. Jenkin: A number of the proposals will involve a modest increase in central funding. Appropriate adjustments will need to be made in respect of local government finance. The expenditure consequences of our decisions will, of course, be contained within the Government's planning totals.
I now turn to the provisions of the Bill before the House. Clause 1 firmly writes into the legislation the safeguard that the provisions suspending the 1985 elections will come into operation only when the commencement order has been made. I repeat the undertaking that I have already given the House. That order will not be made unless and until this House has given a Second Reading to the main abolition Bill next Session. This House remains in firm control.
Clause 1 also firmly writes into the legislation the mechanisms for repealing the interim provisions and restoring the present position should the main Bill at any stage fail to pass into law. So, if the House rejects the main Bill on Second Reading, no commencement order will be

made and the 1985 elections will take place in the ordinary way. If the main Bill fails at a later stage, an order will be made to restore the elections at the earliest sensible date.
Clauses 2 to 5 deal with the elections themselves. There were three courses open to us. The first would have been, contrary to all the precedents, to have allowed the elections to take place in the ordinary way. [Interruption.] Perhaps the House will allow me to explain. That really would have been absurd. [Interruption.] By definition, the House would have given the main abolition Bill a Second Reading, and by April 1985 it might well be on its way to another place. How could voters sensibly be asked to vote for councillors for the GLC and the metropolitan counties in these circumstances?
There are those who would have wished to turn the elections into a referendum on the Bill.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way, on a point about the referendum?

Mr. Jenkin: No, I will not.

Mr. Nellist: The right hon. Gentleman gives way to Conservative Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is fairly clear to me that the Secretary of State is not giving way.

Mr. Jenkin: Would the electorate see it in that light? Would that be a proper purpose of local elections? Rightly or wrongly, the House refused to allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence a referendum on a supplementary rate.

Mr. Jack Straw: That was a different matter.

Mr. Jenkin: I am making the point that, if the argument of some people had been accepted the referendum would have been presented as a referendum on the substance of the issue.
I do not see how we could responsibly consider letting the 1985 elections proceed in such circumstances. We have been widely supported on the matter in the responsible press. The leading article in the Financial Times today makes the sensible point—as did The Times on Saturday—that, in accordance with precedent, elections are cancelled when there is any restructuring. [Interruption.] There has been much misunderstanding on that point. If the House will do me the courtesy of listening, I will explain the real choice that we faced and why we made the decision that we did.
The real choice was not whether or not to suspend the elections. Most sensible commentators recognised that, given the circumstances, cancellation was right and proper, and in accordance with precedent. The real choice is whether, having cancelled the elections, we should let existing councils run on for another year or let the interim councils be nominated by the successor authorities.
Our decision was based on the following considerations. The main function of the interim council, which will have only 11 months to run, will be to arrange for the winding down of the upper tier councils and the transfer of their functions to the local tier authorities. Some of the upper tier councils have refused to allow their officers even to talk to officials in Whitehall. To allow those councils to run on would have been a recipe for chaos and confusion. I find it difficult to believe that many of my


hon. Friends would have thought it right to leave matters in existing hands for another year. In these circumstances, it seems clear that the sensible and practical course is to let the successor authorities nominate the members to run the upper tier councils for the last 11 months of their existence.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the answer to the question, "Why not let the councils run on?" is that many people in this country, and particularly the people of London, have no guarantee about the responsibility of those councils, if given an extra year. We should remember that the GLC is proposing to buy the Brixton recreation centre from Lambeth for £10 million, on the assumption that the centre will automatically be handed back to the borough, which will thus enjoy a £10 million bonanza at the expense of the London ratepayers.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend reinforces my point. What we are proposing is, I believe, fair and democratic. [Interruption.]

Mr. Rob Hayward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to listen to the Secretary of State. The constant heckling and commenting, particularly from the Opposition Front Bench, is making the Secretary of State inaudible.

Mr. Jenkin: The GLC and the metropolitan councils were elected in 1981 for a period of four years. It is of course right that they should serve out their full term of office, and that they will do. They will have served the term for which they were elected.
There has been much humbug about the suspension amounting to a denial of democracy. There is nothing sacrosanct about having two layers of metropolitan government when one will do. The London boroughs and the metropolitan districts are themselves powerful democratic bodies. They are closer to the people. They already administer most of the services. In many areas, they were the only tier of local government before 1974. Did the electors of Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield or Leeds feel deprived because they had only one tier of local government to vote for? It is said by some that the Government have a mandate for abolition but not for cancelling the elections. But to say that is to approve the end while refusing the means.
The question of precedent is very important. Whenever local government is reorganised, provision has to be made for handling elections in the interim. Our action is entirely in accordance with precedent in previous reorganisation—with one exception, to which I shall refer. In the London Government Act 1963 and the Local Government Act 1972, all elections to the authorities which were to be abolished were cancelled, other than pending by-elections. The position is the same in this case. That is precisely what is proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Tony Banks: The elections were postponed.

Mr. Jenkin: There is one difference. In the previous reorganisation, the successful authorities—by definition—were not in existence when the elections were cancelled. The then Government therefore had no alternative to allowing the term of office of serving

councillors to be extended until the new authorities came into being. This time, instead of creating new authorities, we intend to abolish existing ones.
However, we have the advantage that the successor authorities—the London boroughs and the metropolitan districts—are already there. They are powerful democratic bodies in their own right. They will inherit the services. In these circumstances, there seems to be every practical argument for allowing them to nominate the upper tier councils for the remaining 11 months. They can begin straight away to prepare for a smooth transition.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I wish first to make one further point.
It is argued that this could mean a change in political control. In the metropolitan counties, there will be no change. Labour-controlled districts might well have a majority on the transitional councils. That will depend on what happens between now and then. In London, it seems probable that control will change. Whereas in the 1981 GLC election Labour won a small majority, after the 1982 London borough elections—the later elections—the majority of the London boroughs were Conservative controlled. If one accepts the practical point that for the 11-month transitional period the successor councils should be in charge, the change of control in London necessarily follows. [Interruption.] If we accept the practical solution, there is no way in which we could seek to change that. I suggest that there was an even bigger majority in an even more recent election—that of Members of Parliament in London. We are taking the sensible solution.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will not the Secretary of State accept that he is grossly misleading the House in pretending that this action is in line with precedent? The precedent was that there were other authorities which had been elected to take over the responsibilities. The handover was delayed so that the responsibilities could be given to the people who were elected to do the job. No one has been elected to do the job which the Secretary of State proposes to hand over.

Mr. Jenkin: Let me make it quite clear that this action is perfectly in accordance with precedent. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is perfectly in accordance with precedent that, during a restructuring of local government, outstanding elections, apart from pending by-elections, should be cancelled in the interim period. That is what we are proposing. What is new here—I have made this point clear and am trying to conceal nothing from the House—is that on both previous occasions there were no existing councils to run the authorities in the interim period. This time, because we are abolishing an upper tier and devolving powers to a lower tier, the lower tier authorities already exist. That is why, unlike previous reorganisations, we have a choice. That is good, as we have a choice about whether to cancel the elections and let the existing authorities run on, with all the possibilities of hassle and obstruction, or whether—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has wilfully refused to take the point. The point is not whether there is a choice about cancelling the elections. All the precedents show that the choice lies in what is done after cancelling the elections.
We have a choice whether to let the councils run on or to let the successor bodies nominate. In the light of the


obstruction that we have so far faced and officials not being allowed to talk, I believe that we are right to let the successor authorities run the upper tier authorities for the remaining 11 months. That is what we have provided for in the Bill—we can debate it in Committee—and I believe that the Government are making exactly the right decision. There is a great deal of humbug about the cancellations of the elections.

Mr. Robert Litherland: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: No.
Clause 6 sets up a staff commission. Many staff who are employed by the upper tier authorities are quite understandably worried about the arrangements for their future employment.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: What about giving way to the real Opposition?

Mr. Jenkin: I had hoped that the Opposition wanted to hear about the staff. We want to keep uncertainty to the minimum, and a staff commission, which has been widely welcomed by staff interests, is the right way forward. There were such commissions for the 1965 and 1974 reorganisations. They were successful and I intend to ensure that this commission matches its predecessors. I should like the commission to be established as quickly as possible and I therefore intend, following the usual convention, to set it up as an advisory committee as soon as possible after Second Reading. It will be formally constituted as a statutory body when the Bill becomes law.
Clause 7 provides for access to information. During the transitional period it is vital that successor authorities have access to the information that they need to prepare for their new responsibilities. Some authorities have been refusing to co-operate. I am given the impression that the GLC and the metropolitan counties think that if they keep information about their services secret abolition will somehow go away. If the House accepts the Bill, I strongly hope that wiser counsels will prevail. Nevertheless, it is right that, in clause 7, we take powers to require authorities and their staff to make the necessary information available. One consequence of the boycott of discussions has been that we have not yet had such information as we need to make a reasonably accurate assessment of the costs and savings. [Laughter.] I know that, as the Opposition have shown, that matter causes some concern.
The Government remain convinced that abolition will save money. There are bound to be savings from the elimination of the unnecessary bureaucracy of the upper tier. It will be up to the districts and boroughs to ensure that they secure for ratepayers the maximum advantage of that.
I attach much more importance to the estimates of savings by the relevant boroughs and districts than I do to those by firms of accountants, however eminent, that have been hired by the metropolitan counties, because it is the boroughs and districts which will run the services in question. They are the people who can really judge what is likely to happen. Those who have done their sums can see significant savings.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Litherland: rose——

Mr. Jenkin: I shall not give way again.
I shall refer to three studies. In Greater Manchester, the chief executives and treasurers of four district councils estimated annual savings from abolition of 11·5 million, simply from reducing overlap and duplication. That is more than the total savings which the Coopers and Lybrand study showed for the six metropolitan counties. In the west midlands, a similar study has shown, item by item, that abolition——

Mr. Nellist: That study has been withdrawn by the district councils.

Mr. Jenkin: —will produce manpower savings of £8·5 million. In Greater London, four boroughs have estimated that the abolition of the GLC in 1983–84 would have saved more than £200 million, taking into account some changes in policy. Of course, those figures are not complete. With the refusal of certain local authorities to consult, it has not been possible for anyone to make a firm estimate of savings. To achieve that, we need the information that clause 7 will make it possible for us to get. The financial and explanatory memorandum to the main abolition Bill will contain our best estimates of the costs and savings of abolition. We shall keep Parliament fully informed as more accurate figures are obtained.
Clause 9 contains two safeguards—it gives successor authorities the right to object to the audited accounts of the upper tier authorities for 1983–84 through to 1985–86 and it requires the outgoing councils to consult the boroughs and districts before determining their 1985–86 expenditure and rates.
The Government's decision to abolish the upper tier councils was reached after the most careful consideration——

Mr. Litherland: rose——

Mr. Jenkin: —in the light of the repeated and insistent remarks by many of the lower tier councils. The proposal in our election manifesto was endorsed by the electorate. The main Bill will come before Parliament in our next Session. This paving Bill has been drafted carefully so as not in any way to pre-empt Parliament's decision on the main principle of abolition. However, it signals our firm determination to take decision-making closer to local people and to secure cheaper, simpler and more accountable local government in our major cities. I commend it to the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill in the absence of Parliament having approved any alternative arrangements for the administration of services currently the responsibility of the Metropolitan County Councils and the Greater London Council.
If there was any uncertainty about the need to move such an amendment, it has just been removed by a hopelessly unconvincing speech from the Secretary of State. There has never been an assault on local government, local freedom and local democracy such as that presently being mounted by this Conservative Government. There has never before been a Secretary of State who has so contemptuously treated elected councillors of all political parties and the electors.
There has never in any democratic country been a Bill like this Bill—a Bill that is a device to sidestep the


ballot box; a Bill that perpetrates a cynical political gerrymander on 13 million electors; a Bill that, through the abuse of central power, seeks to change political control in London and some of the major conurbations of England—greater Manchester, Merseyside, the west midlands, west and south Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear. It seeks to do this by the abolition of elections and by the appointment of non-elected bodies.
Through this Bill the local government of the capital city of Britain will undergo a political change by Act of Parliament, better described as an Act of absolute political chicanery. And political control in two other metropolitan county councils could be changed as a result of this measure.
As the House knows, the Bill is not about the immediate abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC; it is about the quite stupefying morass of anti-democratic arrangements to be made and the powers to be taken by the Secretary of State before Parliament has made any decision about the future of seven democratically elected councils which govern, at local level, communities that encompass 18 million people—one-third of the people of this country.

Dr. Hampson: rose——

Dr. Cunningham: I am not giving way at the moment.
The Bill raises two fundamental constitutional issues. Parliament is being asked to agree to abolish elections and to agree to interim powers of nomination by boroughs and districts—powers that will allow the Secretary of State to bring about political change and a change in political control in council chambers. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said——

Dr. Hampson: rose——

Dr. Cunningham: I am not giving way.

Dr. Hampson: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It seems clear that the hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Dr. Cunningham: There is no precedent in this or any other democracy for such a measure. It is much more reminiscent of the activities of General Pinochet or General Jaruzelski than of any elected British Government. In addition, the House is asked to approve this Bill without any knowledge of what is proposed by way of democratic control over such vital services as the police, the fire service, transport, waste disposal and consumer services. The future funding of the arts, about which the right hon. Gentleman said something, is uncertain, as is the future funding of sport and recreation and of voluntary bodies. I noted in his comments that, while he said that more funding would be available, he gave no guarantees about the level of that funding in his attempt to buy off opposition, and he gave no commitment that such expenditure as the boroughs might incur would be exempt from the penalties that he imposes upon their spending.
Nothing could be more damagingly undermining than that kind of approach to the funding of so many activities in the metropolitan areas and our capital city. The rights of 13 million voters are to be abruptly removed by this tawdry little trick, and this is a measure of the increasingly authoritarian nature of the present Government.
This Bill is about the abolition of elections; that is the real issue.
I shall highlight one further aspect of the constitutional chicanery in the Bill. Clause 2(5) talks about the balance of political parties. The Bill will not maintain the present balance, as is clear from an examination of schedule 1. The present elected GLC is made up of 48 Labour members, 41 Conservative, 1 Liberal and 2 SDP. At best, the new board will be: Labour 34, Conservative 48, Liberal 2. At worst, the present elected Labour strength could be almost halved by the Bill. That is a measure of the chicanery of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
What we can see nakedly exposed is not just an attack on local government, but a political attack on Labour local councils. The Bill is aimed at ending Labour local government in the cities and the conurbations of England. Coming so quickly after the Bill to control local council expenditure and deny local democracy, which itself mainly threatens elected Labour councils, this Bill exposes the real nature of the Government's intentions to prevent, by elimination or control, Labour councils from defending the people and their services from this Government's disastrous economic failures.
No previous British Government have legislated for local councils in such a biased, one-sided, party-political manner. This is the second time in just 20 years that a Tory Government have sought to gerrymander the political administration of the capital city. On the last occasion, in the 1960s, the Labour party was very uneasy about the proposals, but we accepted them, and we won power through the ballot box—but not this new breed of Conservatives, and not the Prime Minister.
I am bound to ask what really is going on in the Cabinet at the moment. Does anyone any longer care about good local government, a partnership with Whitehall, local freedom and democracy?
According to even more leaks in The Guardian, the Prime Minister herself had reservations about this Bill, and so, too, did the Leader of the House. The Secretary of State, after months of seeing his innermost thoughts in print, must reflect darkly on the trustworthiness of his colleagues. Or perhaps he should reflect on what Mark Twain once said:
I can keep secrets—but the friends that I tell them to cannot.
The House does not need leaks to learn of the brutal naked expediency of this Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who brings to debates about democracy all the Victorian sophistication of Bill Sykes, blurted it all out in his own inimitable way in a speech recently. On 14 March, speaking in Caxton Hall, he confessed the truth, in a speech otherwise replete with diatribe, fabrication and spite. He said:
The GLC is typical of this new, modern, divisive version of socialism. It must be defeated. So we shall abolish the GLC.
There we have it—simplistic authoritarian frankness, typical of the right hon. Gentleman, about a dishonest and squalid political act. Not for this Government, apparently, the ballot box. Do not let the people of London decide. Do not let the people in the conurbations of England make any decision. Do not risk an election. Do not let the democratic process get in the way.
What we in the Opposition despise most about this increasingly authoritarian, even reactionary, Government is the deliberate, planned manner in which they continue


to strip away the rights of ordinary people and their ability to defend themselves. First, take away their jobs—remove their economic freedoms. Next, take away or undermine their trade unions—remove their industrial freedoms. Finally, take away or emasculate their Labour councils—remove their political freedoms. That is what the Government are doing over and over again.
If this is to be the way to govern Britain, if this is the view of the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)—who so often reflects the thinking of the Prime Minister—and if that view is accepted, apparently the Government will be entitled to remove by legislation even democratically-elected opposition. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) made that clear in his intervention. He asked for a guarantee that all opposition to the Government would be eliminated.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman, like other hon. Members, will be aware that there have been masses of expensive literature and poster campaigns throughout London. Ratepayers' money has been poured all over the streets of London. That is wasted money. Ratepayers' money is being used to combat the duly elected Government. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it was a manifesto commitment of the Government to do away with these local authorities. Moreover, Ken Livingstone himself said in 1979 that the GLC should be done away with so that the money could be used for better purposes.

Dr. Cunningham: Presumably, it would suit the hon. Gentleman if the Bill were renamed the "Local Government (Permanent Provisions) Bill".
If the approach of Government in the future is to be that matters of this kind can be changed simply by Act of Parliament, people had better look out. If that is the name of the game, the Tory shires had better start building their earthworks now.

Mr. Derek Conway: rose——

Dr. Cunningham: The council of the Stock Exchange had better start planning its exile, too. The days of all the Tory placemen in public sector jobs are also numbered. The next Labour Government will have to review the finance, structure and functions of all local authorities if the Bill becomes law. High among our priorities will be the role of the shire counties. We shall recreate a partnership with local government to play a vital role in the rebuilding of Britain. We shall proceed on the basis of the widest possible consultation and discussion. We shall recreate an elected authority for the people of London if the GLC is abolished.

Mr. Conway: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: No, I shall not give way.
The origins of the Bill, like those of the Rates Bill, lie in the desperate search for a smokescreen to hide the Prime Minister from the wrath of millions of people who now realise that she has ratted on her promise to abolish rates. It emanates from a cynical election gimmick, unsupported by any review, investigation or inquiry. Nor did the Conservative manifesto dare to spell out the nature of this measure. There are no precedents for the Bill and it is a deception to argue otherwise. Earlier reorganisations abolished or postponed elections, as the Secretary of State

said, but they were replaced by other elections and other councils. Councils were replaced by other elected authorities, but the Bill does no such thing.
In trying to obscure that crucial and fundamental point, the Secretary of State resembles no one so much as the emperor in the Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale. He is blissfully unaware of his nakedness. Perhaps that is why he said that he wanted to conceal nothing from the House. He is just the messenger boy of the Treasury and No. 10. He is the hapless recipient of two of the worst antidemocratic Bills that the House can recall, and apparently he is determined to make the worst of a very bad brief.
At Question Time last Wednesday, the Secretary of State said:
The precedents are perfectly clear. If the hon. Gentleman refers to schedule 3(6) to the London Government Act 1963 and to schedule 3(12) to the Local Government Act 1972 he will find precedents that are very close indeed to what we are putting before the House."—[Official Report, 4 April 1984; Vol. 57, c. 947.]
I will spell out in detail exactly what happened on those occasions.
First, there was never any paving Bill. The Bills on those occasions contained the new structures and details of the new elections and ensured absolute continuity of elected democratic control as one authority succeeded another. The elections due for the old authorities in May 1973 were set aside and the term of sitting councillors was extended until March 1974. I recall that well as I was a councillor at the time. New authorities were elected on 12 April 1973 in the counties, on 10 May 1973 in the metropolitan districts and on 7 June 1973 in the non-metropolitan districts. People were democratically elected at the same time to take over the new bodies. How can the Secretary of State say that his proposals are the same as that process when they are not remotely similar?

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has made the crucial point. On both those occasions the elections that were due were cancelled.

Dr. Cunningham: No.

Mr. Jenkin: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has just said that. He quoted the two schedules. This is the heart of the argument. New authorities were being created. [HON. MEMBERS: "Elected authorities."] Of course. New authorities were created for both the upper tier and the lower tier. In this case, we are abolishing an authority but the lower tier authorities are already there. That is the difference.

Dr. Cunningham: There are none so deaf as those who will not hear. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that seconding elected councillors to roles that they have not been and will not be elected to carry out is the same as holding new elections, as in 1973. If he is honest, he will know very well that it is not the same at all.
The White Paper made no case for such a fundamental change in local government structure and functions. Indeed, less than 8 per cent. of that document was addressed to the case for change. The White Paper has not even been debated by the House and the case for the Bill has not been made in the country. The Bill is not just a constitutional outrage. It is a bureaucratic nightmare, as can easily be shown. Far from streamlining local government and providing cheaper, more efficient administration, it is most likely to have the opposite effect.
Over a period of three years from 1984–85 to 1986–87, services currently provided by the metropolitan counties and the GLC will be administered by no fewer than three different types of authority. In the current fiscal year, the status quo will obtain in terms of control. In 1985–86, control will be switched to interim boards composed of about 300 councillors nominated by districts instead of the present 601 elected councillors. From 1986–87 until 1989 the proposed joint boards will come into being with budgets and manpower controlled from Whitehall. From 1989, these boards will be subject to the provisions of the Rates Bill, if that legislation is still in operation. Is that a way to streamline the cities and to ensure continuity of decision taking, more effective investment or better accountability? On the contrary, it is a recipe for shambles.
The Bill paves the way not to any streamlining but to a massive increase in non-elected tax-raising quangos. Many of those taking over will have no experience of running the services involved, and not one of them will have been elected to deal with such matters. They will oversee budgets determined by other people and are more likely to be concerned about their own electoral hopes in 1986 than about the rump duties that they will be asked to take over.
The Bill further threatens continuity and stability by providing for nominated members to be recalled and replaced by their own councils at any time. Even those delegated will not be guaranteed any continuity in office. That is the theory of delegate control. Those appointees, entirely new to their duties and the functions and service involved, will be supported, if that is the word, by staff with little, if any, morale left, suffering shortages because of unfilled vacancies, and charged with the duty of working for their own redundancies. What price effective administration, forward planning and good decision taking in this mare's nest? Vital public service could well be undermined by this planned dislocation. Does any hon. Member believe that such proposals can increase accountability and save money? They are almost tailor-made to bring uncertainty and confusion, duplication and delay, but at extra cost to the ratepayer.
There is worse still in the Bill, because it gives the Secretary of State even greater dictatorial powers. He can direct staff and authorities to carry out his instruction—more decisions imposed from Whitehall. What if individuals refuse to serve on behalf of the districts that are supposed to be represented? This dictatorial monstrosity of a Bill will allow the Minister on his own account simply to take a decision to reduce the quorum required for decision taking. The absolute power and absolute answer emerges: one-party authorities will exist to take decisions in those circumstances. What sanctions will be applied to the officials or councils who, in their own best judgment, decide not to accept ministerial directions? Will it be a writ of mandamus, will it be dismissal, will it be an action for contempt or will people be sent to prison? If the Conservative party is really pleased or proud to bring local government in Britain to this deplorable position, then there is no hope left for it.
Speaking at the Conservative party conference in October 1983, the Secretary of State said:

I am a Tory, and I have been brought up as a Tory, and I believe that the burden of proof is upon the man who advocates change, and if he does not satisfy that burden of proof then change should not be made.
I agree, although his hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) expressed some difference of view, and some doubts, not about the burden of proof, but about the political claims that were made in that statement, when he wrote of the right hon. Gentleman in the Daily Telegraph:
Regardless of the destination, he is a man for whom there has always been a ticket on the train.
How has the Secretary of State gone about proving his case for the Bill, or the fundamental changes in local government that it envisages? There is only one answer to that. He has gone about it badly, if not ineptly. The Conservative party campaign document claimed that savings of £120 million would result. The right hon. Gentleman told the House today that the reason that he could not give figures was that the councils would not cooperate. If that is so, why did he put that figure in the Conservative party campaign document, and why did he reiterate that claim in a document given to the Government Whip's Office during the passage of the Rates Bill through the House? If he has no figures from the councils, how can he have made that claim in the first place? He has consistently refused to substantiate it, or to publish any basis for his calculations. He has had many opportunities, and has refused to do so.
As recently as this week the British -chambers of commerce and industry expressed their disquiet by pressing the Secretary of State in a letter to substantiate his claims about significant financial savings and rates reductions. He has again failed to do so. Surely the House of Commons and the 18 million people involved are entitled to an answer. They are entitled to know. Ever since the autumn, the Secretary of State has sidled away from this claim, because in his heart he knows that he cannot substantiate it. It is a falsehood, a fabrication, and he knows it.
Similarly, the right hon. Gentleman has consistently refused to publish the evidence submitted to him during the consultation period. Why? Because his proposals have been overwhelmingly condemned, not only as antidemocratic, but as unworkable. The disgraceful and shameful summary analysis, so belatedly produced by the Secretary of State on Monday of this week, shows massive opposition to the Government's case. I suspect that he has gone on accepting submissions long after the closing date of 31 January, in a forlorn attempt to whip up support for his proposals—another sleight of hand. The list of those condemning the proposals runs into thousands—councils, professional organisations, academics, chambers of commerce. Even the CBI has reservations, as does the National Union of Ratepayers Associations. The Secretary of State has failed his own eminently fair and sensible test. How he must bitterly regret those words at the Tory party conference in Blackpool last October.
As on the Rates Bill, the right hon. Gentleman is standing on his head. It was he who wrote in 1977 to the Marshall inquiry on Greater London, and said:
I therefore believe we have got progressively to return to the concept that the GLC is a strategic authority.
A council with a strategic role for London was what the right hon. Gentleman believed in then. He was right. What has changed? He underlined his convictions by specifically asking that Sir Frank Marshall


give weight to these views
included in which were
that GLC planning should extend to a positive socio-economic role.
Those were the right hon. Gentleman's words.
I was advised a few days ago to read the speech that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Education and Science made in 1962 about the GLC. I have done so, but it was barely necessary to go that far back to seek support from the right hon. Gentleman. A few days ago, in a debate on education, the Secretary of State for Education and Science spoke in favour of increased public expenditure, quite contrary not only to the expressed view of the Secretary of State for the Environment, but to the Government's policy as a whole. Last Thursday, this latter day monetarist slipped out of his skin of ticket tout for education vouchers, and became a born again democrat. Education in London, he decided, must be controlled by a democratically elected authority.
Even that change, however, is to be brought about by three different forms of control for the inner London education authority in three years. But does not this decision point out the stupidity of the case that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make? If the argument holds good for education, why not for other services too? The chairman of the Tory party—that giant among politicians—says that the people of London want an elected authority for ILEA. He said in a speech on 5 April:
This is the listening Government.
Why do they not listen to the whole issue? The people of London have made it abundantly clear not only that they want a directly elected ILEA, but that they want the GLC. Right across London, they have made that clear. In Greenwich, even in Finchley, there is massive support for the GLC. In Greenwich, 76 per cent. of respondents believe so. In Finchley, 71 per cent. agree. In both areas, even a majority of Conservative voters agree that they want to retain the GLC. I hope that the chairman of the Tory party is still listening.
The debate is about the Bill and, inevitably, about the councils that are affected, although I agree with the Secretary of State that a major debate about their role must follow in due course.
No case has been made for the Bill. It is not necessary, even if the Government want to abolish these local authorities. There has been barely any attempt at the task of justifying the need for it. Not surprisingly, the Secretary of State ducked the issue again today, but he cannot escape the description of the gravedigger of local democracy and freedom. He has regularly come to the House to bury local democracy rather than to praise it. Nor has any case been made for the abolition of the councils on the basis of their performance. Stripped of the diatribe and rhetoric, the Government have made two charges against the councils. They have accused them of excessive expenditure and of making grants to organisations of which the Government disapprove.
Most of the GLC's increase in spending has gone on additional subsidy to London Transport, which has been immensely popular with the people of London. This year the travelcard has been so popular that LT will make £40 million profit from the scheme. Are Tory Members asking for that to be withdrawn?
For the record, less than 0·5 per cent. of the GLC's expenditure is allocated to minorities. In a recent snide report, Aims of Industry, one of the Secretary of State's

few supporters, made claims about 51 organisations that it described as "odd". It said that they were receiving a total of £796,000 from the GLC. I should just mention that the council's total budget is £876 million. Those grants are the equivalent of 0·04 per cent. of a 1p rate. That puts them in perspective.

Dr. Hampson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Cunningham: In a moment.
The fact that many such groups are dependent on the GLC for all or some of their funding does not diminish their value to a plural society and nor should it mean that they vanish with their source of funds.
The boroughs are under heavy pressure to reduce spending, not to incur more, and they will not wish—and they may not be permitted by the Government—to take responsibility for groups with a remit outside their own boundaries.
The Government may, as they have already hinted, make special funding arrangements for non-statutory groups of high political sensitivity, such as black self-help organisations or other ethnic community bodies. But that would be to miss a point that such bodies have made strongly in expressing their support for the GLC's continued existence. The GLC has launched a comprehensive programme for tackling racial disadvantage across London, and that is welcome. There is a strategic approach to problems that cut across borough boundaries.
Cardinal Basil Hume and the Bishop of Southwark have made clear their views in a letter to the Secretary of State:
We believe that the onus is upon those who wish to abolish present institutions to give reassurances that the weak will not be further disadvantaged. If such guarantees cannot be forthcoming, then we would advocate that Londoners should still be able to elect directly representatives who can take an overall view of the problems and burdens of our great city.

Dr. Hampson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at last. He spoke earlier about perspective. He bandies around the 18 million people affected, but seems to forget that there is a lower tier of democracy.
The GLC is responsible for only one sixth of the funds spent on services for the people of London. Local democracy is at the borough level. We have seen abuse of that one sixth by the GLC and if we give it another year we will see a transfer of assets to Labour boroughs—feathernesting Labour administrations—and an abuse of GLC powers.

Dr. Cunningham: I do not agree with any of that and I have a straightforward answer to the hon. Gentleman: let us ask the people of London to decide. Let them determine the matter through the ballot box. Who is "frit" now?
The metropolitan counties' increase in spending is about 13 per cent. in real terms, and much of that is attributable to expenditure on fire and police services, following pay settlements promised by the Government. Those councils, too, are involved in the funding of important projects, not only for minorities, but strategically across the metropolitan areas. The metropolitan counties account for only 9·3 per of what the Government describe as overspend. The shires account for 19·4 per cent., but they are left out of the Bill.
As Coopers and Lybrand have so clearly demonstrated, the Government's proposals are unlikely to save money and are likely to cost money. People will pay higher rates,


especially in the London boroughs, and will have less accountability. Significantly, the Government have produced no response to the Coopers and Lybrand report.
The Prime Minister and the Government have embarked on a malevolent attack on local democracy and freedom. The Bill is the latest manifestation of their repression of local government. The Government are saying, "If you elect Labour district councils, we will control their budgets. Where you elect Labour metropolitan counties and a Labour GLC, we will abolish them." Contrast that with the Prime Minister's comment on the Tory victory at the GLC elections on 7 May 1977, when she said:
This is our greatest prize.
Now the right hon. Lady says to the people of England, in the boroughs, cities and districts, "We deny you the right to elect Labour councils with the power to defend your community and your services." In 1974 and 1979, she said, "To get your votes we will abolish your rates." Now she says, "To get your rates we will abolish your votes."
We reject not only the Bill, but the duplicity of the measure. We reaffirm our commitment to restore local freedom, local choice and local determination to the people of this country. I ask the House to support the amendment and reject the Bill.

Mr. Edward Heath: This is a paving Bill, and I shall devote most of my speech to it. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State devoted considerable time' to the reform of local government, the Bill for which is due to follow in the autumn. Therefore, before I come to my comments on the paving Bill, which will be, first, on questions of principle and, secondly, on the detail, I wish to refer to the Bill that is to come.
I was born a Man of Kent. I became a Kentish Man by adoption, but for the 34 years that I have been in the House I have represented a constituency which, for more than 20 years, has been part of the GLC, and I have spent all my working life in London.
I have been proud of London as the capital of this kingdom. Historically, it is one of the three great capitals of the world, and it is great in many other ways. In the arts, music, drama, painting, sculpture, galleries and museums, it is undoubtedly the greatest capital that the world has ever seen. It is that which we wish to keep, and for that it is essential that the overall administration of London should be in directly elected hands, as it has been for so long.
There is no joy for any Minister who starts on the task of reforming local government in any form. All my right hon. Friend's predecessors will assure him of that. I am not in the least impressed by the odd quotations that my right hon. Friend gave us of lower tier organisations that had criticised those above them. That has always happened in local government. After all, there are many in both tiers of Government who regard the House as an unnecessary and tiresome interference in their activities. There are many who believe that they could do the whole job of government very much better than Parliament, but we should not take any notice of them either. I am not in the least impressed by that.
Many of the problems that we face result from the fact that the normal procedure for dealing with local government reform has not been followed. It is customary that there should be a Royal Commission and that its report should then be thoroughly canvassed and discussed in both Houses and with all the local authorities concerned as well as with all the other interests. On this occasion that has not happened. Whatever my right hon. Friend may say about councils having sent resolutions to Ministers during the past two or three years, it does not show that a thorough plan was worked out beforehand for the reform of local government, quite apart from the fact that there has not been an official inquiry.
We are seeing all the results of that. Today my right hon. Friend announced a whole series of items that are connected with the forthcoming Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has shown great flexibility and wisdom in changing his mind about ILEA. That is to be greatly commended and, indeed, he has been widely commended on that.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: A moment ago my right hon. Friend was saying that we should have followed the pattern of earlier Governments in having an inquiry and then following that. The difficulty was that the Government in which I was honoured to serve under his Prime Ministership did not do that. We had the Maud report, and then we did something quite different. Since then, I think that many of us have regretted it.

Mr. Heath: The Maud report was organised under the Labour Government. There was then discussion by the Secretary of State, who is now the Secretary of State for Energy, with all the interests in this country. The Government were entitled to change parts of that report and to decide, as a result of all the discussions, what they were going to do. That is what happened.
There was no public inquiry or commission of any kind before those steps were taken. It is quite obvious to all of us that they were taken hastily and without thought, and that is what is causing all the problems for my right hon. Friend today.
As I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) pointed out, under the 1972 Act provision was made for a 10-year review of local government as it was created outside London under that Act. The proper thing to do would have been to follow that procedure. We would then not have all the differences that exist between the two sides of the House and between the local government organisations and the Government as to what the real facts are. Even at this stage they are in dispute.
That is what is lacking from proper discussion in the House or elsewhere. Our job is not to exchange accusations across the Floor of the House about what somebody said at some time or other, but to look after the welfare of all those who will be affected by the legislation. I believe that on this side of the House our responsibility is to look after the good name of the Tory party.
I shall vote against the Bill, and so will other Conservative Members, and I shall tell the Secretary of State quite frankly why. It is a bad Bill and it is paving the way for a worse Bill. It is bad because it is the negation of democracy. There is no point in talking as though indirectly elected organisations are democratically elected. They are not. In the world we have seen progress


from indirect to direct representation. The Bill, therefore, is a retrograde step. For 111 years the American Senate was indirectly elected, but it then progressed and changed to direct elections. For 25 years the European Parliament was indirectly appointed by Parliaments, but it is now directly elected. That, therefore, is the proper procedure.

Mr. Tony Marlow: That was a retrograde step.

Mr. Heath: I know that my hon. Friend does not understand democracy. I do not expect him to.

Mr. Marlow: And that from the great authoritarian.

Mr. Heath: It is a bad Bill because it is an unnecessary Bill. There is another course open to the Government, which I shall discuss later. It is a bad Bill because it is an unprecedented Bill in this area. I must appeal to my right hon. Friend not to go on saying that it follows precedent and that the crucial issue is cancelling elections. The crucial issue is what happens after the elections are cancelled—[Interruption.] I hope my right hon. Friend will not go on saying that he is following precedent, because he is not. There is no precedent for cancelling an election and moving over to indirect government in this country. There is no precedent of any kind for such action.
I hope my right hon. Friend will accept that what he proposes is unprecedented. He is cancelling elections and thereby imposing a form of government on local government as an interim arrangement. In the cases that he cited in 1963 and 1972, elections were cancelled but the existing councillors continued until the change over. That, surely, is the right way to deal with this problem.
The legislation is administratively bad because those who are appointed to the interim government will for the most part have no experience of government at the level of the GLC or the metropolitan councils. They will have no experience whatever. Furthermore, the responsibilities that are in the GLC, in the hands of people from all parties, and in the hands of those who know what government is about, will be passed over to nominated temporary members and then passed on, if the Bill is enacted, to the new system. All that is to happen within three years. Can that be administratively sound? I ask my hon. Friend to look to the good name of the Conservative Government for administration.
Worst of all—and my right hon. Friend did not seem to realise this—is the imposition by parliamentary diktat of a change of responsible party in London government. There cannot be any justification for that. It immediately lays the Conservative party open to the charge of the greatest gerrymandering in the last 150 years of British history. That is what we, as a party, are being exposed to.
As I said to my right hon. Friend over the rate-capping Bill, what would we be saying from the Opposition Front Bench if the Labour party had put forward any such proposals to change the party in power just by a diktat of this House? Does my right hon. Friend not recall what we said about the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), who, when he was Home Secretary, gerrymandered the Boundary Commission's recommendations? He was bound to put them before the House. He did so, and he Whipped his party against them. Therefore, no changes were made before the election. My right hon. Friend should go back and read what we said as a party then about Government's gerrymandering of

electoral arrangements. Yet here the Government are imposing a change of party on the GLC by parliamentary diktat.
The other thing about which I find it difficult to persuade my right hon. Friend is that a vast number of Conservatives in London and in the country care about what is happening, and care deeply about it. It is no use just saying that there was a mandate. My right hon. Friend will say that when the Bill comes along. Those who travelled the country from Aberdeen to Plymouth. as I did, know that this was not one of the election issues and that it was not this that defeated the Labour party.
In my constituency I have always made it quite clear that I would not agree to the abolition of the GLC until I knew what would be put in its place. Nobody has yet told me that. There was no mandate for this sort of paving Bill, and my right hon. Friend must accept that.
The other course open to the Government—I shall not say "to follow precedent"—was to fight the next elections and let the new council carry on. The course that my right hon. Friend has followed has left Conservative Members open to the accusation that we are unprepared to fight the election and are funking an election of this type. That is the charge to which we are now open. My right hon. Friend said that it would be a referendum on London's government. He must understand that an election is not a referendum. An election is for candidates, and if candidates like to make the future of London government the issue they are entitled to do so. Both sides can do that. If my right hon. Friend can persuade all our candidates standing for London seats to fight on the basis of an indirectly elected London administration, that is well and good. He knows full well that the great majority of Conservative GLC councillors want an elected London administration.

Mr. Marlow: They would, would they not?

Mr. Heath: Do we not want an elected House of Commons?

Mr. Marlow: I am surprised that my right hon. Friend does not understand the difference.

Mr. Heath: Why should they not want an elected London government? That charge can now be held against us.
This matter is made more valid in people's minds because the way in which the Government have handled this issue has achieved the inconceivable. They have mobilised the great majority of public opinion in London behind Mr. Kenneth Livingstone. Who, two years ago, would have thought that was possible? That is an achievement hitherto unknown in the annals of local government history.
A second option available to my right hon. Friend was to cancel the elections and let the existing council carry on, and I believe that that is the right course.
My right hon. Friend said that this measure would not be implemented before the Second Reading of the main Bill. That is not good enough, for a number of reasons. It assumes that this is a one-House Parliament. There is such a thing as another place. What happens if the other place rejects the Bill on Second Reading? By then the whole system will have been destroyed and a new one put in its place. If the Bill is wiped out in the other pace on Second Reading, the old system will, supposedly, be restored. Is that sound administration? Of course it is not.
My right hon. Friend gives us his word, but he may find himself in a different position. He might even join some of us. What will the next Secretary of State say? He may say, "I am not bound by my predecessor's words." Nothing in the Bill says that he will be bound by those words.
Under the provisions of clause 1(2) the Secretary of State may repeal parts II to IV. If the Bill fails to get through we shall then have the same administrative chaos. But there is no obligation on him to repeal those parts, and no date by which he must repeal them. If the Government chose, they could allow the temporary system to carry on without any date of conclusion. It cannot be right to give a Government that power, but that is the position on parts II to IV.
Under clause 1(3) the Secretary of State can change the Local Government Act 1972 and the Representation of the People Act 1983 in ways affecting not only the GLC and metropolitan councils but any local government organisation throughout the country. He can do so just by an order. Why does the Secretary of State claim to have those powers? They are surely unjustifiable.
For the first time, apart from Scottish law, there is reference to the balance of parties. How will that be settled? There are no guidelines. If there were guidelines, what would be the control over the borough authorities? Hammersmith and Fulham provides an example. That borough council comprises 28 Conservatives, 28 Labour and two SDP members. Under this legislation, it will have two appointed councillors——

Mr. Simon Hughes: It will have two Liberals. That is the big difference.

Mr. Heath: That does not affect my argument. The authority will have the right to nominate two people. Who will they be?

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Nobody knows.

Mr. Heath: I shall use the neutral term "the alliance". The alliance could choose to go into coalition with the Conservatives, on condition that the alliance got one of the nominated seats and the Conservative the other. What happens to the 28 Labour members who remain unrepresented? The alliance might choose to go into coalition with the Labour party. [Interruption.] If the Labour party rejects that approach, the position will be much easier for our coalition and we shall get both members. Obviously, that is not a balance of parties.
Some metropolitan councils will be in a hung position with nominated people. Those authorities will not have a majority to run the organisation in the interim period.
It is interesting that the City of London, which contributes three seventeenths of the rate, will have no nomination to the interim authority. If that was intended to please the business men, who claim that they do not have a vote, it appears to be a somewhat inadequate method of doing so.
Any indirectly appointed representative can be sacked. That means that the majority on the borough council who do not like what an indirectly appointed opponent has said—the Government are trying to achieve a balance of parties—can sack that opponent without giving any

reason. Another representative can be told to toe the line. Is that desirable or democratic? That is a consequence of the Bill which we are being asked to approve.
Under clause 8 the operations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England are suspended. If the main Bill gets through, there is no doubt in many experts' minds that there must then be a revision of the boundaries to make some of the boroughs viable under the new system. If that is to happen, the Boundary Commission should be preparing for the revision, but it is explicitly prohibited from doing that by the Bill. Why is that necessary?
I have mentioned those factors as bad points in the Bill. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in a flexible and generous mood like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, all these matters can be dealt with in Committee. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for saying that this legislation should be debated on the Floor of the House. He is right. That will not alter the main issues of principle, with which I dealt at the beginning of my speech. The legislation is replacing an elected body with an imposed indirectly elected body. That is completely unacceptable. What is more, this is being done before Parliament, including the other place, has decided what will replace the present system.
The path on which the Government have embarked is very dangerous. It does not follow the normal and proper procedure. Undoubtedly reforms need to be brought about both in the GLC and in the metropolitan counties. That is why provision was made for a survey. If one is to have those measures, one wants to bring them about with the greatest possible agreement. That means patience, examination and consensus about local goverment. The present path is extremely dangerous for local government, for the Conservative party and for the Government because of the chaotic management that will result. It is extremely dangerous for our country to have local government treated in that way, and that is why I shall vote against the Bill.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: It would be remiss of me not to start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) on his speech. It will enhance the esteem that is felt for the House in the country and it was a contribution that all Opposition Members thoroughly enjoyed, not just for the wit but for the way in which he considered the details and principles of the legislation. My only fear in following him is that I am left with little to say because I suspect that he has put our arguments strongly.
At one stage during the right hon. Gentleman's speech I felt that the Government might have been rueing their decision last night to closure the Finance Bill. I should think that it would have been in their interest to avoid this business, the Secretary of State's contribution and the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I look forward, as I am sure do many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to the speech of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary when he answers the points of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. I am sure that that is a treat to which the whole House is looking forward.
The Bill is about abolishing elections for 13 million people and taking away from the people who live in the metropolitan districts the right to run their own services


and decide the priorities for those services. It comes at a time when the Government have increasingly centralised power, shortly after the Rates Bill and the principles of rate-capping have been accepted by the House and promulgated by the Government, and when the public are increasingly worried by the Government's authoritarian nature.
I listened with interest to the Secretary of State's speech because I was waiting for him to advance the arguments that justify the paving Bill. The only justification came from the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). He let out the truth. The real reason why he will be in the Lobby tonight is that he wants to abolish those local authorities that have had the audacity to vote for Labour policies and control.

Mr. Marlow: Nonsense.

Mr. Fatchett: All one can say about the hon. Gentleman is that his frankness, which is useful to us on this occasion, is clearly in inverse proportion to his knowledge of local government.
The only reason for the Bill is that it is an attack upon those people who have voted Labour and supported Socialist policies. It has no other justification.
Let us consider the argument advanced by the Secretary of State. We have had from him on occasions the suggestion that if we abolish the metropolitan county councils ratepayers' money will be saved. That argument comes from the Government's failure to carry through their 1979 election promise to abolish the rates. We are told that the abolition of the metropolitan counties will save money. If that is the case, why has not the Secretary of State given us a precise figure for those savings? Why is he reluctant to set up an independent, impartial public inquiry to study the cost and the implications of the abolition. The answer is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) said, that if he does the arguments may not be as strong as the prejudice on the Conservative Benches. He dare not take the risk of an impartial inquiry into his proposals.
As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup asked, which other Secretary of State, who has sought to reform local government, has not been prepared to put his proposals before an independent inquiry? The Secretary of State has run away every time we have issued that invitation.
The Secretary of State has shifted his ground. The new argument is not about cost; it is about functions. He suggests that the metropolitan counties have too few functions. In a parliamentary answer on 24 February that was the sole justification given for the abolition of the metropolitan counties. Is it not an insult to the people of the metropolitan areas to say that the functions are, by definition and implication, unimportant? Is the Secretary of State saying that the police, transport, highways and the fire service are unimportant? If he is advancing that argument, it is a dangerous path to tread. He seems to forget that the tier of local government that has the fewest responsibilities and functions is that made up of the non-metropolitan district councils.
Will he return to the House at some stage and say, "I propose to abolish the non-metropolitan district councils as well"? Perhaps he is not abolishing them, not because they have too few or too many functions, but because the majority are Conservative controlled. He has not advanced

an argument on functions, costs, or on the support for the proposals, because the consultation process—that is, on the main principle, not on the paving Bill—shows that there is massive and widespread opposition to the Government's proposals.
The five metropolitan districts in west Yorkshire—not all Labour controlled—oppose the principle and the paving Bill. Many voluntary organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux, many arts, entertainment and recreation organisations, and commerce and industry oppose the legislation.

Dr. Hampson: Not in Leeds.

Mr. Fatchett: Where is the Secretary of State's support?
The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) has been up and clown in this debate like a jack-in-the-box. One can suggest only that he is trying to rehabilitate himself towards a job in Government. He made a seated intervention on this occasion, but he will notice from its contribution that the Leeds chamber of commerce is saying that it is completely unhappy with the arrangements that will replace the metropolitan councils. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will mention that if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure, from his willingness to contribute earlier, that he is anxious to participate in the debate.
There is no support and argument about functions and cost. We can find one reason only for the decision—political prejudice and dogma. There is no other. The Government have been unable to advance arguments to substantiate any other reason.
I should like to mention the new arrangements. I shall not follow the excellent example set by the right hon. Gentleman and go through them in detail. He made a number of substantial points. First, the Government will be asking inexperienced, unelected district councillors to run services that cost £1·6 billion per year. Those people were not elected to serve on county councils. Conservative Members who have experience of local government may be aware that people often choose and say, "I want to serve at this level of local authority because at this level I can take an interest in housing, social services, planning or whatever the issue may be." Many councillors have gone forward to serve on the West Yorkshire county council because they are interested in transport, the police or the functions and issues discussed and covered by the county council. Under the so-called interim arrangements, the Government are asking people, who were not initially elected to serve on the county council, to take over the responsibilities of county councillors.

Mr. Nellist: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the points that he has made, those district councillors who are asked to take on the additional responsibilities of the metropolitan county councillors will be hard pressed to deal with the local issues that they were elected to deal with, and the county and regional responsibilities imposed by the Secretary of State? Those additional responsibilities will put extra stresses and strains upon them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. Interventions should be brief, as many hon. Members are waiting to speak.

Mr. Fatchett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) for what


he says. He is right to stress that those elected as district councillors will already have a very full agenda and a heavy burden. They will be asked to take on responsibilities in which they may not have an interest.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fatchett: I shall give way with pleasure in a moment.
To whom will district councillors be accountable? I have been a district councillor and have administered local services, so I know that councillors are responsible to their electorates. People can ring up their councillors or knock on their doors to ask them to take up their problems. If I were a West Yorkshire district councillor in the metropolitan area and was elected to a joint board I would be responsible not to that electorate but, according to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in an answer given earlier this year, to the district council on which I served.
As the Secretary of State said earlier, representation on the joint board by members of district councils will be divided on a proportional basis. Perhaps that is a way of introducing proportional representation. The Secretary of State may be looking for support from the alliance, having failed to gain substantial support from his own party. Given the alliance's current vogue for voting with the Conservatives, he may be right to do so.
The procedures ask for proportional representation. In that process some council members may come from the minority group and others from the majority. Let us suppose that the majority group disagrees with the position taken by a member of the minority group. What will happen then, regardless of the labels of political parties? To whom is that minority representative accountable—the council or his political group? If the majority group removes him from office he can be replaced only by a member of his minority group, as I understand the proposed legislation. Presumably, the new councillor will follow the same policies, so where is the accountability?
The legislation takes away democratic rights and creates a set of quangos. Local councillors will not be responsible to an electorate in any sense and will not be able at any stage to justify their position. Perhaps the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will reply to that point on winding up.
Councillors will be able to introduce, for example, a precept and a transport policy that gains no support from the public, but they will not need to seek re-election on this policy. They will return for election as district councillors and will in that case be elected on issues relating to housing and social services, not those covered by the joint board. The paving Bill proposals take away accountability and democracy.
Although the Secretary of State calls this an interim set of proposals, a paving Bill before the abolition of the metropolitan county councils, it is regarded as nothing of the sort by those living within the metropolitan areas. The Bill deprives them once and for all of their right to vote to control their transport services, highway provisions and police and fire services. We have lost our vote. We have lost the right to determine our policies. For us, it is a final not an interim provision.
We have heard many Conservative Members say in another context, "Let us have a ballot". I finish by asking

the Secretary of State why we cannot have a ballot in the metropolitan counties. The reason is that he is frightened of the electorate and is running away from his proposals.

Mr. Francis Pym: The abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC is a Government commitment, and in tabling the amendment in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends I do not seek in any way to challenge that commitment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wishes to carry it out. What I do challenge is the method chosen to carry it out. The Bill is part of that method.
There is no doubt in my mind that the general election gave the Government the authority they need to abolish those councils, but, as yet, the House does not know how it is to be done, what will replace them or what the new arrangements will be. The Government are now addressing these questions and will in due course inform the House of their decisions, but it is clear that they have not yet been taken.
My first criticism, therefore, is that the Government have not given adequate thought to the new arrangements before commiting themselves to the abolition of the existing arrangements. They had not thought the proposal far enough through beforehand. That is particularly unwise and unfortunate in local authority reorganisation, as the House knows from experience. Changes of this kind are inevitably highly controversial. Many different views are held and it is important—I should say only prudent—to obtain the maximum possible degree of public consent for what is eventually proposed.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said, reform in 1963 and 1972 was preceded by a careful and objective exploration of the possibilities available. There was much evidence on hand for anyone who was interested to study the subject. The House gave its attention to the issue before the Government of the day proposed reform, but that has not happened in this case. We have not yet had any explanation of why the arguments advanced in 1963 for a strategic overview by the GLC are no longer valid.
The Government's claim for making substantial savings by abolishing the metropolitan counties is being challenged by the chambers of commerce and, notably, by the analysis of Coopers and Lybrand. The Secretary of State has confessed today that he does not know the effect on costs, and there has been no debate in the House on the while question of the reform, yet today we are being asked to abolish the 1985 elections.
We should bear in mind the experience of the abolition of the rates, or rather their non-abolition. Abolition was a firm enough commitment until it was found that all of the alternatives were worse. It is not entirely clear why the Government are so confident that something similar will not happen again. There is still an absence of a clear alternative to these councils that can be shown to be much better. In those circumstances there is bound to be uncertainty, which does not make for good administration at local or national level, and which could have been avoided by working things out beforehand.
The Government have asserted that the metropolitan counties and the GLC are "wasteful and unnecessary", so their first obligation must surely be to produce an alternative that is demonstrably cheaper and more effective. That alternative is not yet available. Last


autumn the White Paper was published, and we know that hundreds, even thousands, of submissions have been received. The Government are analysing and assessing them. We were given a few indications this afternoon of what may be decided, but it will be some time before the results are known.
That leads to my second criticism, which is that the Bill anticipates decisions that have not yet been reached. It jumps the gun. My first criticism was that the whole subject had not been thought through in advance, and my second is that action is being taken in the wrong order. A Bill to abolish the 1985 elections ought not to come in before the substantive new plans for the future have been produced. The substantive decisions must be taken first, and then the consequential decisions about elections and other matters, which would fall into the natural and proper place.
The Bill has been described by the Secretary of State as a paving Bill, but I find that a misdescription. The Bill does not pave the way to anywhere, but just abolishes the elections and substitutes an abacus of appointed members. On the main question of what will replace it all, there is for the time being a void.
This is a thoroughly unsatisfactory way to proceed. It may be too extreme to call it unparliamentary or undemocratic, but that is arguable. In my view—I can speak only for myself—it goes against the spirit of parliamentary practice. That is my third criticism. The Bill blandly assumes that Parliament will agree to whatever new proposals the Government bring forward. Perhaps it will, but the presumption is hardly treating the House with the respect to which it is accustomed. That is especially important with a large majority.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I say to my right hon. Friend, with the greatest respect, that he is being a little unfair in not taking into account the clear assurance that I gave to the House that in no circumstances would the commencement order under part II be made before the House had approved the Second Reading of the main abolition Bill. That is not treating the House with contempt, but making it clear that the House must approve the main principles before there is any question of moving into that part of the paving Bill.

Mr. Pym: I was going to mention that. I am afraid that I do not agree with my right hon. Friend on that point. I was speaking about the make-up of the House. The unusually large majority which the Government enjoy—if that is the right word—requires much consideration and sympathy to be given to other points of view. For me, that is the wise and responsible way to use a landslide.
There is one aspect of the Bill that makes matters even worse, and it has already been mentioned. The evidence—my right hon. Friend admitted it—is that one consequence will be that the GLC and some of the metropolitan counties now controlled by Labour will be replaced by an appointed body with a Conservative majority. That will be an imposed change of political control. When my right hon. Friend described the Bill as fair and democratic, I thought that he was stretching the point considerably. If it is true that that change of political control will take place, surely it cannot be right. Surely no one will think it right. The people will not be asked; they will be told. As other of my right hon. and hon. Friends

have said, inside and outside the House, imagine what we would be saying if the role were reversed and we were sitting on the Opposition Front Bench.
The enforced change—the imposed change—of party political control in these circumstances will cause the Government and the Conservative party no end of trouble. It is not worth it. The price is too high. Those are just some of the reasons why the Bill is becoming so unpopular with the public. Of course opinion polls must be treated with caution, but they show that a proportion approaching 3:1 is against the abolition of the GLC, but, as I have said, the Government have the authority to make that change. The polls also show that about three Londoners or more are opposed to cancelling the 1985 elections for every one who is in favour. That is a change for which no indication was given before last autumn.
Right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the letters in The Times yesterday from the leaders of the six metropolitan counties, who are all against the Bill. My right hon. Friend quoted some of their predecessors who did not like the arrangements in the mid-1970s. The present leaders are against the Bill. The Conservative members of the GLC are divided over it. Many are strongly opposed. Their opposition is not decisive, but obviously it is important.
Against that background, I realise that the Bill is convenient for the Government and that they have persuaded themselves that it is the best way to proceed, but I hope that at the very least they will defer it. It is not necessary to bring it in now. The elections involved are more than a year away. Last week the House decided to alter the European constituency boundaries, and that was within two months of the European elections. The election that we are talking about is 13 months away, so there is time. The Bill could be withdrawn. The matters with which it deals could either be incorporated in the substantive legislation or come forward afterwards. As my right hon. Friend said, and repeated just now, he has given an undertaking that it will not be implemented before the Second Reading of the main Bill. However, in my view, it is inappropriate to bring it forward at all in the absence of a fully worked out alternative scheme. I speak only for myself. That is my view.
I think that the Bill is a precedent, and a thoroughly bad one. I do not think that previously there has been a cancellation of elections in the sense that is contained in the Bill. I do not accept, as my right hon. Friend sought to suggest, that it is only a difference in scale from the precedents created before. In my view, it is a difference in kind. It smacks of "the Government know best" and of being so confident that everyone will admire the wisdom of the reform after the event that they see no need to win consent beforehand. The wisdom of the reform is already hotly debated, and the process of dealing with these interim provisions out of phase is likely to increase the controversy. I believe that what is proposed is not the Conservative way of doing things. If the Bill is passed, I am afraid that my opinion is that the Government and the Conservative party will rue the day.

Mr. John Cartwright: It is noticeable already that this is not so much a debate as one-way traffic. Apart from the beleagured Secretary of State, all the contributions so far have been against the measure. Like


other hon. Members who have spoken, I want to base my objection both on the principles on which the Bill rests and on its practical implications.
The most serious objection that I have in principle is one to which every speaker has drawn attention—the fact that the legislation will undoubtedly change the political control of the nation's largest authority, the Greater London council, without a single vote having been cast. I cannot believe that that can be right or justified. If the Bill had no other major faults, that would still be enough to condemn it.
Ministers frequently argue that they have a mandate for the measure. What they usually mean is that tucked away in the election manifesto is a commitment to the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. There was no clear reference to the proposal to do away with the elections.

Dr. David Clark: No reference at all.

Mr. Simon Hughes: That is right.

Mr. Cartwright: Indeed.
An interesting comment on the principle of the political mandate in elections was made by Lord Denning when he was Master of the Rolls in the famous GLC v. Bromley case on the "Fares Fair" scheme. Referring to the principle of the political mandate, Lord Denning said:
It seems to me that no party can or should claim a mandate and commitment for any one item in a long manifesto. When the party gets into power it should consider any promise or proposal afresh, on its merits, without any feeling of being obliged to honour it or being committed to it.
That was directed against the GLC, but I suggest that it could be just as easily directed against the Government and their manifesto.
Precedents to the measure have been bandied about. I recall taking part in a debate in February 1976 on the London councillors order. It implemented the proposal of both Conservative and Labour Governments that the period of office of GLC members and London borough councillors should be extended to four years. I recall Conservative Members' reaction in the debate. They were passionately opposed to the period of office of those councillors being extended by a further year and the delay of the elections that resulted from the decision. They denounced it as a Machiavellian plot to rob the electorate of the chance to pass judgment on Labour GLC councillors. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), speaking from the Conservative Opposition Front Bench, said in the debate:
We say that Londoners should be given the chance to say what they want this year, not next year. Give Londoners the chance this year to rid themselves of the Socialist encumbrances which get worse week by week at County Hall. I make no secret of my support for such a move. I am not scared of the people's verdict—unlike the Labour Party … I hope that the Minister …will invite the House to vote the Order down and let Londoners decide at the polls this May what sort of administration they want to govern in their name".—[Official Report, 4 February 1976; Vol. 904, c. 1349–52.]
If that was Conservative reaction to the delaying of the election by 12 months, how much more strongly should they react against doing away with elections altogether?
As to the transitional councils, I support those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have drawn attention to the practical problems that flow from what is proposed in the legislation. The whole business is riddled

with major drawbacks. There is no machinery for ensuring that appointments are made by borough and district councils. It is possible that Labour councils will refuse to co-operate in this operation and will refuse to nominate people to serve on the transitional councils. Although the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to reduce the quorum, if the transitional councils operate with only Conservative party membership that will undermine their credibility and substantially increase the work load of the members. Leaving aside the politics of the issue, it is possible that we shall find great difficulty in encouraging people to volunteer for such a job—it is not the most attractive job in local government—for an 11-month period. It will involve a great deal of hard work.
I endorse what the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said about the references in clause 2(5) reflecting the political balance of the nominated authorities. There is no guidance on how that should be operated, and it is a potential can of worms in a number of authorities, particularly in London. I am also concerned about the power in clause 3 to enable nominating bodies to recall appointees. No guidance is laid down about the circumstances in which they can recall a person, and there is no protection for the individual against arbitrary use of that power. It simply enables the majority parties to treat their representatives on the transitional councils purely as nominees.
There is also the issue whether experienced members of borough and district councils are prepared, able and willing to serve on the transitional councils. There is some doubt about the kind of members of district or London borough councils who would be willing to spend 11 months as statutory undertakers and to take part in the burial arrangements of the Greater London council. It is not likely that we shall get borough council leaders, deputy leaders or chairmen of committees of standing and experience to volunteer for such jobs. It is worth remembering that in London all borough councillors will be up for re-election in May 1986, and their concentration is more likely to be directed towards getting themselves re-elected.
It is probable that the kind of people who will be serving on the shadow, passing-out-of-existence GLC will be people with no experience of its functions, who know little or nothing about its administration, and who may not even know their way around the County hall building. It would by rather like putting the crew of the Woolwich ferry in charge of the QE2. It is a recipe for chaos on a massive scale.
There is, then, the problem whether the job can be done in 11 months. I have talked to people whose judgment I respect, who work in the administration of County hall and who raise considerable doubts about whether the job can be done in 11 months. If it cannot be done in that time scale, what happens then? Do we have a whole new crew of borough and district nominees taking over after the 1986 local elections?
I also endorse what the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said about the curious omission of the City of London from this body. At the moment it is democratically represented on the GLC because it joins with the parliamentary constituency of the City of London and Westminster, South to elect a GLC member. However, on the basis of schedule 1, there is no representation of the City of London. That is odd. I can remember, during the passage of the Rates Bill, the


Parliamentary Under-Secretary waxing lyrical about the 700 years of continuous local government in the City of London, and it is strange that that tradition is not to be continued through representation on a transitional council. I do not shed tears for the City of London but the omission is typical of the way in which this legislation has been drafted.
Clause 7 lays a duty on the staff of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils to provide information that is needed by the Secretary of State to facilitate the abolition of the employing body. In other words, they are required to co-operate in the possible extinction of their jobs. That is an extremely onerous duty to lay on any employee. There are no signs of what sanctions will be provided if employees do not co-operate. The Secretary of State or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary have a duty to explain to the House just how such a proposition can work in real life.
This is a shabby measure, which has the whiff of Tammany hall gerrymandering about it. It is wrong in principle and unworkable in practice. It does not deserve a Second Reading, and my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will oppose it in the Lobby tonight.

Mrs. Angela Rumbold: It is with some trepidation that I rise in this unitedly hostile audience to say that I welcome the Bill and unreservedly reject the amendment. I do so as a Londoner—a resident of London for 20 years—as an ex-London borough councillor, a deputy leader and a chairman of a policy resources committee serving under the Greater London council and as a current London constituency Member of Parliament.
I fought the 1983 general election on a platform of wishing to abolish the Greater London council and the other metropolitan county councils, and even in my by-election of 1982, it was an issue. On both occasions, I have not disguised my preference for clearly defined sectors of government. Central Government have major responsibilities and Members of Parliament are elected to preside over these matters. Equally, local government has a separate role of decision-making on matters that are much more appropriate for residents to decide upon than central Government.
I have always been sceptical about the so-called strategic approach, of interspersed layers of Government. Only very rarely can individuals make strategic decisions, and almost never on a regular basis. The general invariably returns to the particular.
However, today the argument is not about the merits or demerits of abolition. It is about the propriety of legislation to pave the way for abolition. Here, practical matters must be considered. It is all very well to say that nothing should be done until the legislation for abolition is brought before the House, but that denies the reality that abolition will involve a great deal of administrative handover and, I hope, a number of decisions that tasks now undertaken by these county councils are unnecessary. This matter cannot be solved by the waving of a wand, and is one that any responsible Government must perceive as in need of time—time to make arrangements, not least of all for present employees, as well as for devolution of powers to the boroughs and any other bodies that are thought appropriate to carry out such business as is evident for continuation, following abolition.
As I see it, this paving Bill does just that. The argument that such a task could be undertaken by extending the time of the present administration is unrealistic, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said. It would be so whatever the political colour of the present incumbents. Many of the Conservatives in these councils are, or would be, just as antipathetic to the Government's proposals as the Labour party.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Lady explain why unrealism is more important than constitutional principle? In any event, what is unreal about extending for one year the life of an elected body?

Mrs. Rumbold: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument, I shall come to that point.
The idea that the election in 1985 could go ahead is equally unrealistic. Who will stand for election for one year with the clear remit that they are to dismantle a large, unwieldy organisation? It simply ignores human nature, especially when upon election the members magically lose any connection they had with other mortals and become all too god-like. The Government have sought to find a way of giving an overtone of democracy to the interim arrangements by seeking membership from the boroughs for the body that will oversee the abolition arrangements.
To be consistent, I must admit that I would have been happier had the decision been to appoint a simple commission to do the job. The people concerned would have had a clear task; they would have accepted it on known terms of reference and would have brought more simplicity to what will inevitably be a complicated issue.
Two events recently will greatly assist in the preparation of plans to abolish the GLC. One i s the presentation of the London Regional Transport Bill which will remove responsibility in London at least for transport management from the strategic grasp of the Greater London council. The other is the decision to have a directly elected education board for the inner London boroughs. The latter announcement should be seen for what it is. Far from signalling a weakening in the re solve to reduce layers of government, it has accepted the fact which many of us who have held responsibility for education in our local government days have known for years—that education authorities require separate members whose sole commitment is to that area of local government because it is so mammoth.
Most local authorities, both counties and boroughs, will say that the membership of the education committee invariably comprises people whose sole interest in local government is education. They may serve on other committees as part of the package, but the meaning lies in the work they do as members of the education committee, its sub-committees and the governing bodies of local schools and colleges. It is an enormous commitment of time and energy, and few councillors who take it seriously—and most do—will give much else to council work.
It is, therefore, a misapprehension to believe that the inner London boroughs which will elect people to serve on the education board for inner London will in any way reflect the present Inner London education authority or the present Greater London council. It is much more likely that it will reflect the interests of parents, teachers and those with a genuine interest in children and their welfare.
To illustrate the imposition that this layer of government puts on the individual, I should like to quote


the figures relating to the additional cost to householders in the borough of Merton, of which my constituency is a part. It is an education authority, being an outer London borough, and the figures take account of the apportioned domestic rate relief. In the year 1981–82 the cost of education to the householder averaged £15. In 1982–83 it increased to £30, a 96 per cent. increase. In 1983–84 it increased to £35, an increase of 128 per cent. on the figure for 1981–82. Curiously, with abolition hanging over the authority, in 1984–85 the use of balances reduced the figure to £33; there was a simple decision by the elected body, the GLC, to raid the balance and cynically to bring down the cost to Londoners. Nevertheless, over the past three years the average ratepayer in my borough has had to pay an extra £36, and for what?
I am convinced that this Bill is the first step towards achieving the desirable objective of removing a
body which provides a lot of glamour for the members … to be whisked round in nice cars, to have a large officer corps, to support them and do all the necessary things to make them feel important and to provide all the substitutes for those who have not managed to get elected to Parliament".
Those are not my words but the words of Mr. Kenneth Livingstone.

Mr. Dave Nellist: I declare an interest as the first speaker who is serving on a metropolitan county council, that for the West Midlands. On the Labour Benches and outside the Chamber in the Labour movement we need no lessons on democracy from a Tory Cabinet or from a Tory Secretary of State. Only 24 hours ago, Cabinet Ministers were lambasting miners and the National Union of Mineworkers about whether or not the union intended to hold a ballot so that 20 per cent. of its membership may decide whether 80 per cent. should have the right to defend jobs and pits. Now we have the hypocrisy of a member of a Tory Cabinet trying to tell working people that the Government will abolish a ballot for 18 million people next year. That is a gigantic U-turn. They have the brass neck or, as was said last night, the brass face to try to carry that off.
We do not need lessons in democracy from a Tory party that does not elect its leader. It has been said that the present Tory leader emerged like a butterfly from a chrysalis; such is the way democracy works in the Tory party. I leave it to hon. Members to decide whether that is an appropriate description. Nor do we need lessons in democracy from a Tory party that does not elect its chairman but which gives that individual £5,000 per year extra for being appointed to the post. As I say, 24 hours separates the Cabinet's U-turn and its hypocrisy on the ballot which it deems necessary for the Labour movement and its wish to abolish democratic elections next year for 18 million people in the metropolitan counties.
The Bill could best be described as squalid, as a measure based on fraud. It is a preparation for the abolition not of the councils in the areas that have been referred to but of the councillors, and particularly of Labour councillors. All the functions that the metropolitan councils and the GLC fulfil will still have to be maintained. As many as 96 per cent. of the employees of the authorities work in services such as police, fire, waste disposal, consumer services, highways and so on. Those functions will still have to be carried out. The democratic

ability to control them will be passed from the hands of directly elected Labour councillors to quangos and possibly, through privatisation, to the private sector.
We shall have a repetition of the direct appointments, either by the Cabinet or by the Department of the Environment, that we have seen in water boards, with retired military people and retired this, that and the other being brought in over the heads of working people. Then we shall have the spectacle that we had a couple of days ago, of Tory Members complaining about water rates and the service in different water authorities. They complain that working people in the areas they represent are unable to challenge whether the services are being properly run because they cannot elect the people who are now controlling them. The Bill will replace democratically elected councillors with similar control from the top.

Mr. Tracey: I think there is a slight error of fact in what the hon. Member has been saying. Surely the members of whatever small number of joint boards is set up will be democratically elected local government councillors. They will be members of local authorities. There is no suggestion that councillors will be replaced by bowler-hatted colonels or whatever the hon. Member talks about.

Mr. Nellist: The Bill paves the way for the direct appointment of district councils to control some of the services. It is also a paving measure for the abolition of the metropolitan councils. Since no one knows—because it is not down on paper—how the new bodies are to be run, we can only assume, from statements from the Tory leadership, that the abolition of the metropolitan councils will include the setting up of joint boards and the direct appointment of people to run some of the services.
The debate is about the abolition of the metropolitan councils before we know how the functions of the councils are to be replaced in the next two years. Therefore, no one in this House can say with certainty that there will not be a repetition of what happened with the water boards, with the direct appointment of people by the Department of the Environment. Tory Members may shake their heads but we have only to consider the family practitioner committees and other bodies set up by the DHSS. They are examples of Whitehall taking control of appointments nationally and locally to look after various services. There is more than enough precedent for my point.
Liverpool and other authorities have been mentioned. This paving Bill gives the Government a dry run in how to deal with other areas of local government where councillors have refused to have their authorities run down by Tory and Liberal coalitions, or to accept the legacy of despair and derelict housing with which Liverpool and other areas are faced. Those authorities refuse to make the cuts required of them by a Tory Government. The Bill sets a precedent for the abolition of elections in Liverpool and other areas, so that the Tory Cabinet can decide how those areas are to be run. I warn the Minister and the Secretary of State—he is not now present—that working people will not allow the Government to travel indefinitely along that road.
On 29 March, thousands of workers in Liverpool, London and elsewhere demonstrated against the manner in which the Tory Government wish to abolish the democratic control of the metropolitan councils. There were similar large demonstrations in Birmingham and


Manchester. In my own authority area I have had discussions with transport workers, clerical officers and others working for the authority. Those discussions made it clear to me that people locally—and now on a national scale—will not indefinitely accept a Tory Government trampling on the rights of working people.
Democracy is not an abstract issue; it is a class issue. The class that the Opposition represent in this Chamber have fought for 150 years to extend democracy. They fought in the 19th century so that the right to vote could be extended to working people as a whole rather than be confined to landowners. In the early 20th century, there were struggles for women to be given the vote. In the second half of the 20th century there were struggles to get the voting age reduced to 18.
Working people have fought for the extension of democracy so that they can have greater control over how wealth is created and distributed in our society—so that we can lift the poor, the sick, the infirm, the elderly and the youth out of the morass of Tory policy and give them a decent life. That is why we fight for democracy.
It is instructive that occasionally there are debates within the Tory party. Those debates are not so much about principle; they are about timing—when it is appropriate to use the mailed fist or the velvet glove. This evening we have had speeches from right hon. Members opposing the measure. We shall welcome in the Opposition Lobby anyone who opposes the measure. But it is worth remembering that a dozen or so years ago those same people were trying to restrict freedoms within the trade union movement, and were responsible for the imprisonment in Pentonville of the dockers' shop stewards. We saw the reactions of working people to those events.
Democracy, I repeat, is a class issue. The ruling class, and their representatives in the Tory Cabinet, are in favour of democracy when they think that it can influence the closing of pits, or when they think that people such as Woodrow Wyatt can help to influence decisions on postal ballots and trade union elections. We are the only consistent defenders of democracy—[Interruption.] The working class and their representatives are the only consistent defenders of democracy.
The Government are no doubt confident that they can push the Bill through by using the carrot of office or the stick of the denial of office. But even if the Government can persuade Conservative Members to vote for the measure tonight, it will not be forgotten in the country that only the Labour party, in the longer term, will defend and extend the rights of working people, whether it is a question of electoral franchise or of having a say in how the wealth created by working people is to be distributed.
Whenever we oppose the rights of the wealthy and the privileged in our society, the Tories seek to ride roughshod over working people and their rights. The Tories tried to cripple the trade unions through the Employment Act 1982. Now they are trying to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan councils, which have attempted to co-operate with working people in ending the ravages of employment, low pay and poor housing.
I represent an area which in 10 years has become one of the poorest in the whole of the United Kingdom. A third of the people in the county and region that I represent are on or below the official poverty line. Half the 250,000 people there who are on the dole have been unemployed for over one year.
When the West Midlands county council attempts, through the sponsorship of a low pay unit, to identify social problems or to pursue economic development policies to tackle some of the worst areas of deprivation, the Secretary of State and the Cabinet seek to abolish it.
The debate is about democracy but it is also about the rights of working people to economic democracy, to a job, to a house, to a proper education and a decent health service. The Government may manage to get the necessary number of their supporters through the Lobby tonight to vote for the ending of local democracy, but they will find that the working people will resist not only this measure but any similar Tory measures in the future.

Mr. David Howell: Despite the youth of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), his speech sounded like the faded Marxism of a very old man. I do not think that the world he described really exists, except in his mind, and I do not think that his views add anything to the debate or enable us to tackle the serious problems raised by the Bill.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House agreed, at the beginning of our proceedings this afternoon, to take the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House. He did not concede that it was a constitutional matter, but I believe that it is, just as I believe that the Rates Bill is a constitutional matter. Those are issues that we should treat with the greatest care and tackle only with the most careful consideration, because they involve the customs and patterns of our constitution. I believe that the Government's stand so far on those matters suffers from what is called—in the current jargon—poor presentation, but I do not think that the Government's position is half as weak as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), in a devastating speech, sought to make it appear.
I find no difficulty in the concept, which lies at the end of the pattern of legislation on which we have now embarked, of handing down additional powers to the great borough and metropolitan districts—and, in the case of London in particular, to enormous boroughs of hundreds of thousands of people, many of them with ancient lineage, great importance and influence—and bringing those powers nearer to the people.
It is nonsense for the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East to speak of 18 million people being disfranchised. Is he dismissing the whole business of local government as conducted by the great boroughs of London? It is quite wrong to talk in such terms. As one who wishes to see a greater diffusion of power rather than a concentration of power, I am not troubled by a further delegation of powers and duties to the borough councils in the Greater London area, and I see no particular difficulty in requiring interim arrangements to be established while that new pattern of delegation comes about, or having reserve powers which will come into operation in May 1985 if the House decides on a new pattern to replace the existing GLC.
The powers are reserve powers. The word "paving" is an unhappy choice. The powers will enable us, if we decide to replace the GLC with another elected body, or to have a two tier pattern of the Whitehall Departments and the boroughs, to cancel the election and have interim arrangements for the succeeding 11 months. My right hon. Friends have waxed eloquent and indignant about this


matter. It is true that it is a constitutional matter, but the Government of the day are entitled to make such a constitutional move, to bring forward arguments and to propose reform. Why should there not be constitutional change from time to time, as long as it is openly recognised for what it is?
The real question behind the Bill is one that you have allowed to be discussed, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Mr. Buchan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell: The real question is whether the path along which the Bill helps us—until the next Bill—is the right one. That is a constitutional issue.
In many ways, the legislation of which this Bill is the first part takes us in the opposite direction to the Rates Bill which is now in another place. The aim is apparently—we do not have all the details before us—to strengthen the London boroughs. I shall speak in particular about the metropolis of London. The Tory party has been trying to strengthen the London boroughs for a hundred years. It has not always had the support of the Socialists, and in the 1880s it was not supported by the progressives. In that sense, this move is a return to the past.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup spoke of the Bill as a retrograde step. In one sense, that is true. The Bill marks a return to the aims of those who argued, from the earliest days of London government reform in the 19th century, that the boroughs were the most important democratic force in London government and that some scepticism should be employed in reviewing the work, the efforts and the ambitions of the larger umbrella organisation, the original London county council.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell: So, in one sense, the Bill is a return to the past. In another, it is a move to the future. There can be no doubt that the whole pattern of urban life and devolution has taken us on from the high tide of metropolitan government and the metropolitan idea. I suspect that in future there will be increasing pressures to move away from the massive umbrella organisations for metropolitan government and towards a type of government that more closely corresponds to the true nature of the conurbation of London, which is a cluster of cities rather than a single city.

Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell: The aims of the reserve powers and of the powers in the forthcoming Bill will be in line with the future needs of local government. [Interruption.]
There remains a key question for the future. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) will permit me to ask it. Even when the London boroughs have been strengthened, will there still be a strategic role to be performed, of a kind that did not exist at the time of the inception of the LCC one hundred years ago?
We shall hear much more about the Marshall report when we discuss the Bill in the autumn. Lord Marshall came to the conclusion that there was indeed a strategic role of some kind. However, he had some difficulty in defining strategy and in defining that role. He mentioned

in general terms the need for supervision over the planning activities of the boroughs. He dealt with roads and traffic, and talked about the need for a strategic concept in deciding the investment priorities in the future road and public transport patterns in London. I believe that my right hon. Friends will have to think much more carefully than they appear to have done so far about how to handle the strategic role.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: My right hon. Friend states that the Government will have to think carefully about the strategic role. Many of us would agree with him. Does not that show how unwise it is—to put it mildly—to anticipate the will of Parliament by passing this Bill, which will in effect cancel the elections, anticipating the fact that next year both Houses of Parliament will agree to abolish the Greater London council without any clear idea of what will replace it?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend—whom I greatly respect on these matters—is wrong about anticipating the will of Parliament. The will of Parliament will be expressed when the Bill to abolish the GLC has its Second Reading. If the will of Parliament is that the GLC should not be reformed, replaced or abolished as suggested in that Bill, the present Bill will fall. There will be no anticipation in any sense that should worry my hon. Friend.
What we will have to decide, when we discuss the Bill with which these reserve powers are connected, is how the proposed London planning commission could be organised and whether there should be, for instance, an authority under the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment for dealing with traffic. The London regional transport organisation will deal with the operators of public transport—the buses and the underground. Personally, I wish that it also embraced the south-east region of British Rail, but that is a separate issue. It is wrong to suppose that that legislation will solve the problem of traffic, traffic administration and road investment priorities in the metropolis. There is a great need for a vast improvement in traffic organisation, road investment and integration between road investment and other forms of rapid transit in London. That will require an intense strategic thrust and insight. I do not believe that anyone has a clear idea of how the Government think that that should be provided under the arrangements mentioned sketchily in the White Paper.
We should recognise that the changes are constitutional, but I see no great difficulty in trying to make such changes which lead to a greater diffusion and delegation of powers to massive local authorities which should be treated with respect and strengthened. That reinforces my doubts about the general powers in the Rates Bill, which I hope will be considerably amended in another place.
The Government will need to clarify greatly their proposals for handling traffic and road investment priorities in the capital. It is not good enough to say that the boroughs will be the traffic authorities because, big as they are—they represent perhaps 400,000 people and cover large areas—they are not big enough to handle the vast problems of mobility in the great cluster of cities that make up and will continue to make up London.
Finally I make one plea. My right hon. and hon. Friends should have a care in using too freely the argument about the supremacy of Parliament in matters of local


government reform and in moving on to a more delegated or more centralised system, whichever comes out in the future. There should be more sensitivity when talking about the right and supremacy of the House in making changes in what is alleged to be a unitary system of government. The truth remains that the esteem and subtle glory of this place rests on the fact that Parliament presides over independent and separate institutions and has not tried to use its supremacy to put them down. We should always remember that in our handling of local government reform.
I believe that if a system which gives more powers to the boroughs and metropolitan districts can be devised and it can be combined with a thrust, especially in London, for the reorganisation and modernisation of traffic and roads, which have stagnated for years under the GLC, we shall have real progress, in democratic terms and in terms of good government. Surely that is the aim.

Mr. Tony Banks: I was not altogether sure whether the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) was speaking for or against the Bill, but perhaps he is rather like the man who sat on the fence waiting for the iron to enter his soul. Listening to some of the speeches from Conservative Members I have had the feeling that I am intruding on private grief. Nevertheless, I should like to add my voice to the criticism of the Bill.
The Secretary of State and his somewhat benighted Under-Secretary of State, who has unfortunately left us for the moment, must now be feeling rather like two coconuts in a shy at a fair. This is not the first time that that pair of hon. Members have been castigated by both sides of the House. I should have thought that, by now, they would have started to learn the error of their ways.
I shall confine myself to the issue as it affects the Greater London council, a body of which I have been proud to be a member for the past 14 years. It is interesting to see two previous leaders of the GLC, from completely different parties, sitting up in the Strangers Gallery. It is also interesting how the Bill has united both Tory and Labour opponents in the House and in county hall.
The Secretary of State has been quoting precedent for the Bill and using the examples of the 1963 and 1972 local government reorganisations. Those reorganisations cannot possibly be compared with the Bill. An excellent Library briefing says quite clearly.
These interim arrangements are unique in modern local government organisation in that full elections are to be cancelled to local authorities which are to continue alone for a period beyond the date of these elections.
In 1963 and 1972, elected bodies took over the powers of the earlier organisations. It is wrong for right hon. and hon. Members to suggest that powers are going to the boroughs. They are going not to the boroughs but to joint boards. Indeed, far from going directly to the boroughs, they are going to indirectly elected joint boards, which are a device that was rejected in London as early as 1855. Never before has the House been asked to approve the abolition of an election for a body that will remain in existence in name and in terms of powers after that election has been abolished.
Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out that there is another disturbing consequence. If this dangerous and undemocratic Bill

becomes law, on 6 May 1985, the Labour administration in county hall which was duly elected by Londoners at the ballot box in 1981 will be replaced at a stroke by a Tory-controlled regime appointed by the boroughs. An election will have been abolished and the political control of the GLC will have been changed without a vote having been cast by Londoners.
I know that there are some fair-minded Conservative Members—even among Environment Ministers. I ask all fair-minded Conservative Members to think for one moment what their reactions would have been had a Labour Government made such a proposal. If a Labour Government had abolished elections in the shire counties and handed over administrative power and political control to a series of joint boards and quangos, what language would Conservative Members have used to describe it? What language would have been used by the Tory newspapers to describe such a measure?

Mr. Simon Hughes: Blue.

Mr. Banks: Is it therefore any wonder that a leading Tory GLC member, Mr. George Tremlett, wrote today in the Morning' Star of all places—the Bill has created some strange bedfellows—as follows:
The proposals are so outrageous and so contrary to all the Conservative traditions of government that they must call into question Mrs. Thatcher's capacity to form a balanced judgment on important issues of public policy".
In yesterday's copy of The Times, 11 leading Tory members of the GLC signed a letter of protest. The Bill is opposed by the overwhelming majority of Tories in county hall. It has divided the Tory party in London right down the middle and has clearly divided the Tory party in the House. I am naturally no great mourner of news about Tory party division, but it demonstrates a growing and deep disquiet within the ranks of the Conservative party at the shoot-from-the-hip style of the Prime Minister. It is the style that leads to speaking first and thinking afterwards.
The Bill cannot be considered in isolation from the proposal to abolish the GLC. That latter proposal was to be found in the Conservative manifesto and therefore, I suppose, has some respectability. Ministers constantly remind us that it was in the manifesto, but the abolition of elections was not in the manifesto, nor was Jt in the Gracious Speech. It was not an issue at the general election.

Mr. Tracey: The hon. Gentleman has listed various members of the Conservative party in the House and in local government who apparently oppose the Government's policies, but many Conservative Members would be extremely interested to hear his explanation, as he is such a close soulmate of Mr. Ken Livingstone, of what he said in March 1979. Mr. Livingstone said:
'Abolish the GLC' because I think it would
be
a major saving and would have released massive resources which could have been put into far more productive use.
It would be useful for the hon. Gentleman to explain why Mr. Livingstone has changed his stance.

Mr. Banks: I will indeed. I can also quote the present Secretary of State for the Environment, who, speaking at the same time, said:
I therefore believe that we have got progressively to return to the concept that the GLC is a strategic authority.


Let me explain to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). Ken Livingstone was wrong in 1979 and he is right now. The Secretary of State was right in 1979 and he is wrong now.
We are being asked to abolish an election. If the Government are determined to abolish the GLC, let them bring forward the substantive legislation first and let the House and the country judge it on its merits. We are being asked to approve the abolition of GLC elections without knowing the Government proposals for the successor bodies. That is a quite unprecedented move, I believe. It is no good the Secretary of State saying that the abolition of the elections will not be triggered, until the Second Reading in the House of Commons. As right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House know, there is another stage in the legislative process, and it involves another place.
I believe that, in the absence of those substantive proposals, the elections due in 1985 should take place. Why will the Government not allow them to take place? There is one reason, and one only: the Government know that the Tory party in London would be annihilated at the ballot box in 1985 were those elections to take place. The opinion poll that MORI did in the Finchley constituency of the Prime Minister showed clearly that a majority of Conservative voters even in her own constituency are opposed to the measure that her Government are putting forward.

Mr. Litherland: On this point of opinion polls, I should like to inform my hon. Friend that the Manchester Evening News opinion poll came out strongly in favour of no abolition of the Greater Manchester council, and that the Bishop of Manchester has now called for an inquiry into alternatives. Does he not think it unfair that the metropolitan counties have to suffer because a Prime Minister takes a paranoic view of Ken Livingstone and thinks that he is immortal?

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend has conveyed the extent of the opposition to the proposals which we are being asked to consider today. I said that I was confining my remarks to London, but I am very mindful how much opposition there is to these proposals in the country as a whole.
If the Greater London council is so unpopular with Londoners, if the daily propaganda in Tory rags like The Sun, the Daily Express and the Daily Mail is correct and represents the truth, all the Government have to do is put it to the test and let Londoners decide. But the Government dare not let Londoners decide. The Government are frightened because, in the final analysis, the Prime Minister, like all bullies, is a coward.
For my part, I would rather see the GLC controlled by the Conservative party than see those elections abolished—and so, I suspect, would the great majority of my party. If the elections were held in May 1985 and the Tory party won on an abolition ticket, then—as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said—it would immeasurably strengthen the Government's case. It would put the Government's case beyond question, beyond peradventure, and would totally destroy the opposition being mounted by the Labour GLC and the Labour party in the House. If the Government are so convinced of the merits of their case for abolition, they

should let the 1985 elections take place and let Londoners decide, because it is their right to vote that is now being taken from them.
I said that it was impossible to separate this Bill from the abolition of the GLC. It was interesting to hear the Secretary of State talking about the way this proposal came forward. As I understand it, it was written by the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister into the Conservative party manifesto, and when it appeared it appalled her more thinking Cabinet colleagues. Most of them, of course, are now outside the Cabinet and are still appalled by what is being put forward. I believe that the right hon. Lady is leading her party towards the darkness of authoritarianism, which will inevitably lead to a backlash outside the House.
The right hon. Lady, we know, hates any opposition within or outside her party; the evidence of her hatred of such opposition is all around her on the Government Benches today and in all the speeches that we have heard.
I find it most distasteful and rather alarming that measures of this sort can originate in the mind of one individual who then does not even bother to come into the House to listen to some of the arguments. I do not expect the right hon. Lady to be in any way convinced by my arguments, but I would have very much liked her to sit there and listen to some of the arguments by her right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Martin Stevens: The Prime Minister does not need anybody to defend her, but it is distasteful—to use the hon. Gentleman's words—to hear this travesty of her character and attitudes presented to the House. Those of us who have the pleasure of working with her know that the picture that the hon. Gentleman has painted is a farrago of nonsense. An attempt to present her as an autocratic dictator does no credit to the House and is of no service to the country.

Mr. Banks: When she reads the contribution from the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) tomorrow, the right hon. Lady might prefer him, because I think that she will soon be looking around for a new Secretary of State for the Environment. That might have been the hon. Gentleman's early bid for that position. It will not be a happy one if this is the sort of legislation that continues to come before the House.
The Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary might dress up abolition of the GLC in other language that is perhaps more acceptable to the House—the sort of pseudo-economic and pseudo-administrative terminology that will give some respectability to this measure. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, the truth was spoken by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)—the Norman Hunter of British constitutional theory. I think it is well worth while giving that particular quotation in full—I put it down as early-day motion 598, which perhaps hon. Gentlemen would now like to sign. The right hon. Member for Chingford said:
the Labour Party is the Party of division. In its present form it represents a threat to the democratic values and institutions on which our parliamentary system is based. The Greater London Council is typical of this new, modern, divisive version of socialism. It must be defeated. So we shall abolish the Greater London Council.
Where are the economic arguments, the administrative arguments, the arguments that this particular piece of paving legislation is going to lead to greater efficiency of


local government? The reasons for the abolition of the GLC and for this paving Bill are avowedly party political reasons of the most crude and blatant nature. The House should perhaps be grateful to the right hon. Member for Chingford for spelling it out in the sort of language that even a journalist of The Sun can understand. I should like to know whether the Secretary of State or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary agree with what their right hon. Friend said. That would be an interesting point for them to make in winding up.
I would remind the House that the GLC was set up following an intensive three-year study by a Royal Commission and that weighty evidence was considered at that time. In its conclusions, the Herbert commission—the name by which the Royal Commission was known—devolved all possible powers from the GLC to the boroughs. When the Secretary of State or Ministers say that what is being done is giving powers back to the boroughs in London, it shows their total lack of knowledge of local government structure in London.
The Marshall inquiry, which the hon. Member for Surbiton mentioned in connection with a comment made by Ken Livingstone, took evidence in 1977 and duly reported.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Would the hon. Gentleman just remind the House of the powers which have been transferred to the London boroughs since the GLC was formed and since the Herbert commission reported? I am sure that, as someone who served on the GLC, he will be well aware of the important responsibilities which have been transferred.

Mr. Banks: Indeed I can remember them and I could, if time allowed, spell them all out in detail. I would just suggest to the hon. Member that in all those cases those powers were taken away from the GLC by Conservative Governments. Indeed, the Government are just taking another power away from the GLC—the control of London Transport. That is being done not to bring about a more efficient transport system in London, but to pave the way for abolition. The salami tactic of slicing off more and more pieces ultimately means that the body from which the slices have been taken no longer has any strategic function, but we have not reached that stage with the GLC.
When the present Secretary of State gave evidence to the Marshall inquiry in 1977, he made it clear that the GLC should "look after strategy". When asked for his view about extension of the GLC's boundary to the M25 he agreed that that would be
logical—there was no sense in preserving boundary lines solely for historical reasons".
When asked about social services co-ordination, he said that
it would make dealing with matters like the maltreatment of children easier to deal with if both education and social services came under the same authority".
He sought to add more and more powers to the GLC.
What has changed the right hon. Gentleman's mind since 1977? Has another Royal Commission investigated local government structure in London without our knowing about it, or has a mere change in political control at county hall brought in a form of Labour control that he and the Prime Minister dislike, as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made so clear?
The Bill would take the structure of London back to the indirectly elected Metropolitan Board of Works, which

was abolished in 1890 when the London county council was set up. We knew that the Prime Minister had a great love for Victorian values. It seems that the same applies to Victorian local government structures, as she wishes to take us back to 1855.
The Bill is unprecedented in the history of the House, and it must be stopped. However persuasive and entertaining the arguments marshalled by Conservative Members—it does us good to hear them—the rest: will turn up at 10 o'clock to troop through the Lobby with the Government. If the Prime Minister wished to add an eighth day to the week she could undoubtedly persuade Conservative Members to vote for it, such is her party's majority. It is a perfect example of elective dictatorship in action.
There is, however, another aspect of this institution—the other place. If the House of Lords wishes to maintain its position as the long-stop against this House passing undemocratic measures, that is where this measure must be stopped. If there is any justification for the existence of the other House—it is certainly ironic that I should be defending it here—and if it wishes to win a few friends on this side, albeit on a temporary basis, it should carry out the function for which it exists and stop this House acting undemocratically. If this House passes the Bill it will certainly be acting undemocratically.
In my first speech in the House in June last year I said that the GLC should not be treated like a south bank equivalent of the Belgrano, to be sunk to satisfy the Prime Minister's power lust. The GLC campaign against abolition of the elections is winning massive support from people of all party affiliations and of none. Before May 1985, the GLC will humiliate the Government. We shall teach the Prime Minister a lesson that she richly deserves—a lesson which is long overdue and from which she will never recover politically.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As a large number of Members wish to take part in the debate and there is not a lot of time left, I hope that hon. Members will have regard for the interests of their colleagues.

Sir Ian Gilmour: There is a certain mystery about the Bill and about this issue. When proposals for the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties were put forward a year ago, it was widely believed that those authorities constituted a wasteful and unnecessary tier of local government and there was wide support for the proposals. The mystery is that the more the case has been advanced, the less good it has seemed to be. I accept the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that, contrary to widespread belief, the proposals were not dreamed up just before the general election but had been widely thought about before.
That being so, it is surprising that the proposals were not thought out better or, apparently, at all. Even if they were dreamed up some time before the election, they seem not to have been scrutinised at that stage. That is why they do not bear scrutiny now. The more the proposals come out in dribs and drabs, the less convincing is the structure—if that is the right word—proposed by the Government, and it is made still less convincing by the interim arrangements before us today. Whatever may be
 

said, removing an elected majority of one party and substituting a nominated majority of another is constitutionally unacceptable and makes the argument seem even weaker than it did before.
I disagree with the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) that because the main proposal was in the manifesto the Government are committed to it. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) referred to Lord Denning. I appeal to the even higher authority of the Lord Chancellor, who said that
doctrines of mandate and manifesto
were to his mind
wholly unconstitutional".
He said:
It is, of course, right and proper that, when parties go to the country, they should explain, in broad language, what they consider the situation requires in terms of general policy, and what measures they would propose to carry out if entrusted with a majority in Parliament. But in practice, while before the election the manifesto is written rather in the style of an advertisement for patent medicine, after the election, it is treated as a pronouncement from Sinai, with every jot and tittle of that unread, and often unreadable, document reverenced as Holy Writ.
The actual situation with which a new government is confronted is often vastly different from what it was imagined to be in opposition, and the measures proposed in the manifesto often include the impossible, the irrelevant, and the inappropriate.
It is not for me to judge into which category these proposals fall, but they certainly do not come into the category of measures that should necessarily be pursued. It is plain to me, as it is to the Lord Chancellor, that the doctrine of the mandate is purely fictional, because most people do not read the manifestos and the vast majority cast their votes on general rather than particular issues. Therefore, merely because something is in the manifesto does not mean that the Government feel that they have to carry it out when a little further inquiry shows that the proposal is undesirable.
The whole trouble with the Government's general approach to local government—and with both their local government measures so far—is that it is based on far too little thought and far too little fact. Conservatives above all people should be chary of attacking institutions before they have found something to put in their place. To put it mildly, "Streamlining the Cities" is not an improvement on the present system. It would be far better to start again. The structure of local government is important, but finance is even more important and both need to be looked at properly. If we continue as we are, I am certain that we shall run into considerable difficulties, that the Government will run into considerable difficulties, and, even more important, that our institutions will be damaged. What we need, therefore, is a high level inquiry. It need not take long, because it could be composed of full-time members and, after all, a great deal of work on the matter was done in the 1970s. I think that an acceptable solution could be found fairly quickly, and I am sure that that is the rational way to proceed.
If my right hon. Friend sticks to his present course, he will win the vote tonight, but he will lose the argument, he will lose the opportunity to reform local government, and I think that he will lose a great deal of credit. Therefore, I beg him to change his course.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am honoured to take part in the debate as the only Member of the House who is a member of Merseyside county council. So proud am I of Merseyside county council that I have decided to wear my Merseyside county council tie. It has been interesting to observe that some very strange people are proud of Merseyside county council. When the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) returns to the Chamber, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will see that he is wearing the Merseyside county council tie—a rather strange choice on this occasion.
I am proud of Merseyside county council because, when I was chairman of its economic development committee for some two and a half years, we generated 7,000 permanent jobs on Merseyside, which is 7,000 more than have been created by the Government since they came to power in 1979. In all, 40,000 jobs have been lost on Merseyside as a result of the Government's economic policies. One notes in the approach of the Government not only their lack of proper consultation, but their lack of open government in revealing the evidence that has been produced. The Secretary of State for the Environment, when occupying another post some 10 years ago, told the British nation that it must learn to brush its teeth in the dark. Now he is telling the House that it must learn to legislate in the dark without seeing the full evidence produced which could, and should, be provided in the Library of the House.
We are asked to expect colleagues on the district councils to take over functions of the metropolitan counties in a crucial year when change is taking place. They are not likely to pay much regard to matters concerning the metropolitan counties during their brief tenure of office as county councillors. We have been told by the Secretary of State that elections on 7 May 1985 would be inadvisable, and that the councillors then elected would be in office for less than a year, so there is little point, he said, in going ahead with the elections. However, we know that there was an argument in the Cabinet. One of its many leaks told us that the Cabinet group, known euphemistically as MISC 95, had an argument about whether there should be a principle of extending the lives of the existing county councillors or of substitution. It opted for substitution, because its hatred and its intolerance of political opposition knows no bounds. Instead, when the so-called reform takes place, joint boards will be created from the membership of the district councils.
The district councils will still be subject to triannual elections. There will be an election every year for one third of the councils. No doubt they will be using clause 3 year in and year out to find replacements. This will mean continuous disruption to the work of the county councillors, which will add to the fragmentation of the services. We should be returning, if we are to continue with the legislation, to the situation that existed between 1972 and 1974 when the existing councillors elected in 1972 were allowed to continue in office until 1974.

Mr. Martin Stevens: The hon. Gentleman states that the Government's intention to run the GLC and the metropolitan councils through the borough and district councils is due to their hatred of opposition. If the members of the borough councils are nominated in


proportion to the political balance on those councils, as provided for in the Bill, there will still be a Labour-dominated adminstration.

Mr. Wareing: My information is to the contrary. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no doubt about what will happen with the Merseyside county council. If the situation in 1984–85 follows the lines of what currently obtains, we shall find ourselves in the position of having 24 Labour members, 17 Conservative members and eight Liberal/SDP members. It must be borne in mind that in Merseyside we are being asked not only to add to the work of the present district councillors, but that 49 of those district councillors should take on the jobs presently carried out by 99 councillors. Who will represent each of the 99 wards in the county of Merseyside currently represented by the elected county councillors? The Secretary of State knows well the difficulties in which we find ourselves in the city of Liverpool. He knows that much of this has been due to the hung council that existed between 1973 and 1983. Now he proposes to impose upon Wirral, St. Helens, Sefton and Knowsley districts the same pattern of government that Liverpool suffered in that period of 10 years, and which created the problems that now face the local authority.
I warn Conservative councillors in the district of Sefton that there is every likelihood, if the legislation goes through, that boundary changes will have to take place to provide economic viability for the new district councils that will have more functions to perform. The Government—and I should like the Secretary of State to tell me if I am wrong on this—will be considering the boundaries between Sefton and Knowsley. Political control by the Tory party in the Sefton district, which includes Crosby, will not be maintained as a result of this legislation. To argue that there will be substantial savings in local government staff on Merseyside is ludicrous when one considers that the functions of Merseyside county council will be divided between three or four joint boards, seven areas of inter-district co-operation, and seven joint committees. Eight of the functions will be performed in each of the five districts. There will probably be 10 bodies concerned with the arts, one national prosecuting service involved with one of the functions and two shire counties—Lancashire and Cheshire—involved with smallhold-ings. How on earth will all that result in staff savings?
If it is argued that those who will administer the services—generally district councillors—will have been directly elected, I remind hon. Members that 75 per cent. of expenditure of the county council is on police, fire services, passenger transport and waste disposal. Those functions will be handed over to the joint boards on which there will be no overall political control.
Ratepayers will be faced with a multitude of rate demands because of the bureaucracy that the Government are creating as they move not towards greater local accountability, as the Secretary of State would have us believe, but towards more Whitehall dictatorship.
The Secretary of State said last week that the savings involved ought to be substantial. But he cannot say how much will be saved, and we should remember that he is the same Secretary of State who said that the reorganisation of the NHS would cost £5 million when it actually cost £54 million.
We cannot get away from the reasons for abolition. We cannot deal only with the abolition of elections. The

Secretary of State told the Knowsley Conservative association that the Bill was necessary because the expenditure of the Merseyside county council had more than doubled, from £110 million to £251 million, between 1978 and 1984.

Mr. Robert Parry: Bearing in mind the high unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency and in my own, did the Secretary of State mention how many jobs would be lost with the abolition of the county council?

Mr. Wareing: No. The Secretary of State made no such comment, but we know that under the hung city council 4,000 jobs were lost, and I can imagine a similar situation occurring as a result of the Bill.
The increased expenditure of the county council between 1978 and 1984 included a 174 per cent. increase in the bill for police pay and a 128 per cent. increase in the bill for firemen's pay. Those were nationally agreed increases.
There has been an increase of 111 per cent. in expenditure on passenger transport on Merseyside, but the income of the authority has increased by only 41 per cent. because of Government cuts in the transport supplementary grant. If the Tory party's Merseyside manifesto of 1981 had been put into operation, fares would have increased by 78 per cent. and there would have been further cuts in services.
Merseyside is being asked to sweep aside the electoral victory of the Labour party in 1981, which was confirmed by the victories of Labour parliamentary candidates last year, and to take on the Tory party manifesto of cuts in services, more redundancies and attacks on the living standards of working people.
The Secretary of State ignores the fact that this year's increase in expenditure includes £500,000 towards the international garden festival. The county council will be penalised to the tune of £1·5 million for co-operating with the Government in that venture.
The people of Merseyside know that if the Bill goes through, and is followed by abolition, they can say goodbye to their bus services, the ferry service on the river Mersey and the county council's policy of providing unemployment centres and finance for the unemployed to get together to form worker co-operatives.
We are proud of the assistance that the county council gives to the arts on Merseyside. If the Bill goes through, the arts will suffer. Do not expect the Liverpool city council to spend a penny to help the Royal Liverpool philharmonic orchestra. The city council is already under attack from the Government and it will not be able to provide funds for the museums and art galleries that are part of our heritage. The people of Merseyside know that in fighting the Bill we are fighting for essential services.
The Secretary of State wrote in the Liverpool Daily Post on 24 January:
I believe beyond any doubt that the vast majority of people want abolition of the Merseyside county council".
Let him put it to the test; publish the evidence and allow elections to be held.

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you kindly remind the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) that he has been speaking for nearly 20 minutes and that many other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, but I have appealed for brevity and I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) will bear that in mind.

Mr. Wareing: I appreciate the difficulties of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), but I have waited some time to make my speech.
There is overwhelming support for the maintenance of the present top tier of local government, not only in Manchester, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) pointed out, and in London, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) explained, but in Merseyside. A poll conducted by the Liverpool polytechnic found that 70·3 per cent. of those questioned favoured the retention of the Merseyside county council, 80 per cent. were against increasing the powers of central Government, and 86·8 per cent. favoured the county council's cheap fares policy.

Mr. Parry: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Tory members of the Merseyside county council oppose abolition, as does the Merseyside chamber of commerce?

Mr. Wareing: The leaders of the three parties on the county council have said that, although there may be differences of strategy, they all favour retention of the county council. There is no doubt about that.
When the Secretary of State addressed the Tory party conference last October, he told delegates to listen to the voice of industry. The voice of industry on Merseyside has been expressed by the Merseyside chamber of commerce. It has quite clearly said that the county council should be retained because of the work that it has done in promoting business and economic activity on Merseyside and the work that it has done for the arts. That is what the voice of industry says on Merseyside. I hope that the Secretary of State will listen to that voice. Incidentally, the president of the Merseyside chamber of commerce is none other than the Earl of Derby, who hosted the Secretary of State when he visited Knowsley old hall last weekend.
A few weeks ago, the people of Merseyside made their views quite clear when, at the end of a football match at Wembley, the crowd in unison cried, "Merseyside, Merseyside." It is not only a geographical expression but a political entity. It must be retained as a democratic political entity, and we must not allow this Bill to pave the way for an increase in totalitarianism in this country. The consequences for this country of the rate-capping Bill and the abolition of democratic authorities are dire indeed. We are travelling along a very slippery slope. I only hope that there is a sufficient number of Conservative Members and Conservatives in the other place to ensure that this country is saved from the Thatcher dictatorship.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I shall try to be brief, despite the fact that I have been provoked by the remarks that have been made.
In his opening speech my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that there would be a statement about a major part of this issue. Some of us, particularly those of us from the metropolitan authorities, know that the arts, an important part of our local culture, are very worried about where their funds will come from. All that my right hon. Friend could say was that a statement would

be made, somewhere else, about the provision being made for the arts. That does a disservice to hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly as last Thursday I asked for a statement to be made in the House on that very matter.
I shall briefly outline my position. I think that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will agree that ideally we should debate the paving provisions and the right to hold elections to the GLC and the metropolitan counties after we have decided what to do about those authorities. That is the ideal position. However, I am a realist, and I should have thought that we were all realistic about this sort of thing, as it often happens. There is not a great conspiracy. All Governments face the same problems. The abolition Bill is a very detailed, complicated, lengthy proposal and it has taken much longer to draft than anyone, with the best of intentions, expected. Therefore, it will be late. We are debating this Bill now because it concerns next year's elections. If it was part of the Bill that has been delayed, it would probably not have received Royal Assent in time for those elections. It is as simple as that. That is the reality, and there are no great consequences.
The central question is what to do with a council that is in existence and whose next elections are to be abolished. Hon. Members have discussed all sorts of issues, but that is the central one. I find myself in a difficult position, because there are certain precedents for saying that the existing people should be kept in train. However, I do not believe that the precedents are all that good in this instance. I have great respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).

Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend think that this Bill would be before us if the Conservative party had been in control of those authorities?

Dr. Hampson: Yes. I had not intended to deal with that, because in a sense it relates to a position that I held in the Government. Supposedly, one is not meant to talk about such matters. However, I assure my hon. Friend that when the Conservative party came to power in 1979 and I had the privilege of serving in the Department of the Environment, within weeks one of the issues raised was the proposed abolition of the metropolitan authorities. The majority of those authorities were then Conservative controlled. I am quite open about the fact that I live in a metropolitan authority which most people regard as the best, sanest and most responsible of all metropolitan authorities, but I am still—just as I was then—committed to their abolition.
I believe that we got things wrong before in creating them and that brings me back to my point about my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. We got them dead wrong. Frankly, it takes some nerve for him to say that the proper procedure would have been to have a Royal Commission. In that case, it took three years. It took his Government two years to come to decisions about it, and they ignored all the central recommendations of that Royal Commission. Moreover, they saddled us with these hybrid creations—metropolitan counties—which have no real intellectual or local government justification. At the time, they were a compromise. As has been said, they have no historical roots. More importantly, the Royal Commission denied that there was any value in them. It proposed that my city, Leeds, and other cities should be


authorities in themselves. There was the notion of the city region. The Government of the day, however, went totally against the Royal Commission.
We ended up with authorities which were powerful, bureaucratic and expensive, but which did not have any effective responsibility. We did not give the metropolitan councils real powers that mattered. We did not, for example, give them powers over education. Their only effective power was over transport, and therefore they saw no need to juxtapose the costs of one major service against those of another. They set about trying to create roles for themselves, just as the GLC has done.
The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) tried to convey the impression that we were somehow denying local democracy and about 18 million people were being frustrated by the Bill, but it is a farce to suppose that the metropolitan counties and the GLC constitute local democracy. There is a form of local democracy that is much closer to the people. Most of those in my area do not have any affinity with the metropolitan council. They hardly know their metropolitan councillors. However, they are close to the district councils and to the councillors of the city of Leeds, because most of the services that matter to them are district services. Most of the money is district money. Only just over 20 per cent. is spent by the county council. That great monolith, the GLC, with all its bureaucracy, provides only one sixth of the money that is spent on services that affect the people of London.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that before the GLC spent £2 million on its public relations exercise very few Londoners knew what it stood for or what it did, and that even fewer were interested in voting at the GLC elections? It is only the £2 million of public money—soon to be £3 million—that the GLC has spent that has brought the issue to light. Such expenditure has led to this sort of Bill.

Dr. Hampson: I entirely agree. However, I apologise to the House for having been sidetracked. I had promised not to speak for too long.
I am amazed that Labour Members spoke not one word about the creation of the staff commission, which is essential to the proposed system. We are debating this dilemma now rather than later because of our beliefs. Opposition Members may snigger at that, but the Government are considering the staff involved and the provisions for them. It is worth putting on the record that we are worried about this matter. There is a problem of timing, and it is important to take that into account during this debate. No Labour Member mentioned the staff side of the issue.
The cities used to be one-tier authorities. It is crazy to think that there is something absolute about the two-tier system that presently exists. Local government has always evolved within circumscriptions. In that sense, we are in the mainstream of tradition.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup made the point that normally we move from indirectly elected representatives to directly elected representatives. That is not the tradition in local government. Most local governments throughout the world are not as independent as those in this country.

Mr. Litherland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Hampson: I shall not give way. I do not wish to speak for too long.
Given that we are debating this subject now, how do we deal with the elections, and the successor bodies? There is a precedent for cancelling elections, but the position we presently face does not necessarily have a good precedent. In 1974 the successor bodies were directly elected, and Opposition Members harp on that point. Many people in the former bodies expected to be included in the successor organisations. In the interim, during the extra year that they were granted when the elections were cancelled, those people acted with a certain sense of responsibility. With respect, that is not the case now. We are faced with giving an extra year's life to people on the metropolitan councils and the GLC who have no sense of responsibility, no future and no power base left to them. Moreover, during the past four years, their track record has been very irresponsible.

Mr. Litherland: rose——

Dr. Hampson: I shall not give way. I am coining to the end of my speech. I promised to be brief. Many other hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Litherland: There is more than the GLC involved.

Dr. Hampson: I am talking about the metropolitan counties. Their actions have demonstrated that they are profligate. The evidence is available in the campaigns on a number of different issues in which each metropolitan council has participated. If one assumes that those councils will not inherit anything, how much more irresponsible will they be in the limited future?
Earlier today I cited the Brixton recreation centre. We can see on a grand scale what will happen if the GLC is given an extra year's grace. The GLC is buying that centre from the borough of Lambeth for £10 million. When the GLC is abolished, that centre will automatically revert to the borough of Lambeth. That borough is gratuitously being given £10 million. If such transfers of assets are happening now, what the devil will we be faced with in giving a year of grace to the metropolitan councils? We faced with irresponsibility, and we have faced that aspect before.
The year 1974 provides us with one parallel. In l974, parts of metropolitan districts, such as mine, which did not want to go into metropolitan districts after the reorganisation, ensured that they got rid of all their assets. They built swimming pools, bridle paths, parks and the rest so that those assets would not be transferred. Opposition Members are kidding themselves and the country generally if they believe that, in the year's grace granted, the metropolitan counties and the Labour authorities like the GLC will do other than spend that time transferring assets to Labour pocket boroughs and district councils.
It is about time that we got rid of the metropolitan counties and the GLC. I dislike the timing of this measure in the House, but the principle is clear. If we are to take this action, we should not give the metropolitan counties and the GLC a year's grace. In four years, who will remember the GLC, the metropolitan counties of South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire or even Ken Livingstone?

Mr. Roland Boyes: A fundaniental and deep-rooted wrong will be committed if there is a majority in favour of this Bill. Elections will be


abandoned for councils whose future has not yet been determined by Parliament. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State might reply that consultations have taken place and that the results justify the Government acting in advance of the abolition of the metropolitan counties. I do not believe that that statement, under any circumstances, justifies the Government's activity this evening.
Several groups have discussed the Bill. The Guardian has clearly said that there has been a major split among senior Cabinet Ministers about whether the Bill should be brought before Parliament. Tonight, we shall see a large vote by ex-Cabinet Ministers, ex-Prime Ministers and senior Tory Back Benchers who have made it clear, well in advance of this debate, that under no circumstances do they want the Government's business to succeed. Writing in The Times today, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said:
To treat local authorities as simply the providers of services on terms laid down by the Secretary of State is to undermine one of the essential elements of our national life. Hitherto directly elected local government has been regarded as one of the twin pillars of our Constitution.
What are the councils' opinions? Through a series of superb advertisements, on billboards and in the national press, the GLC and the six metropolitan counties are making absolutely clear their opposition to the Government's measure. A number of the leaders of the opposition on the metropolitan counties and the GLC are not happy about the possibility of a majority voting in favour of the Bill. Alan Greengross, the GLC Tory leader, is quoted in The Standard today. The article states:
his party is passionately against scrapping the elections".
The Tory leader and his colleagues on the Tyne and Wear metropolitan county council, which is part of the area I represent, supported the resolution carried by that council showing that the council holds a view similar to that of Mr. Greengross.
What about the people who have written to the Secretary of State about the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC? The right hon. Gentleman has admitted, at long last, that the vast majority of the representations he receives are against abolition. It is not necessary to prove that. As surely as day follows night, those against abolition are against the paving Bill. The GLC has done an analysis of the responses known to it. It has found that 721 people are against the proposals in the White Paper and a paltry 10 are for them.
We can judge the views of the people living in the affected areas by the results of a series of opinion polls. Hon. Members have made great play about the 2:1 majority in the Prime Minister's constituency against abolition and against the Bill. The MORI poll showed that there is a 3:1 majority against abolition and therefore against the paving Bill.
The results will have been replicated and even bettered in the metropolitan counties, especially in Tyne and Wear. People are genuinely worried about the Government's attack on civil liberties and the democratic processes. People have experienced the results of trade union legislation and the generalised attack on local authorities and democracy through rate capping. The people have seen paramilitary activity against miners' picketing. Last night in the House hon. Members were, for the first time in 60 years, prevented from discussing the Finance Bill

and matters affecting their constituents. Today we are witnessing a further attack on our democratic processes and rights with the Government's attempt to scrap another set of elections for councils that exist and will continue to exist after 1985.
I urge the Government to consider the fact that they are travelling down a dangerous road. They are setting a precedent that I, my colleagues and many Conservative Members see as a grave threat to principles that have been fought for and won over several centuries. The Government did not obtain a mandate from their discussions with the several and divers organisations that have been consulted.
It is safe to conclude that we are discussing a one-person Bill. The remainder of the Cabinet, the small-minded Ministers and thoughtless little men, are following their mistress in case their red boxes and chauffeur-driven Austin Princesses are taken from them. I suggest that they consider tonight the bigger sacrifice made by many of our forefathers to create the democratic system that Conservative Members are busy dismantling. To support that point, I shall quote from an article written by George Tremlett, OBE, a leading Tory councillor in the Morning Star. [Laughter.] It does not matter in which paper the article is published. George Tremlett wrote:
During her first premiership, Mrs. Thatcher became obsessed with Ken Livingstone; she regarded him as a danger to the state. It was she who committed the Conservative Party to the abolition of the GLC by personally writing that commitment into the general election manifesto.
The Secretary of State, speaking at the Tory party conference in 1983—this quotation has been read many times this evening—said:
I am a Tory, and I have been brought up as a Tory, and I believe that the burden of proof is upon the man who advocates change, and if he does not satisfy that burden of proof then the change should not be made.
Nothing that the Secretary of State has said tonight has satisfied me that he has proved his case. The demolition job carried out on the Bill by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) showed that the Secretary of State had no case to be massacred.
At the elections for the metropolitan counties people were asked to return members for four years to carry out tasks and fulfil certain objectives as outlined in the party manifesto. It was expected that those councillors would present themselves again in 1985 when they would be answerable for their activities over that four-year period. The people would exercise their fundamental right to take from those with whom they were dissatisfied that which they had previously given.
The people have done that on many occasions since the formation of the metropolitan counties and the GLC. The ruling groups have regularly changed on those authorities. Greater Manchester, Merseyside, West Yorkshire and the West Midlands—four of the six metropolitan counties—have experienced a change of controlling party in the three elections since 1973. In 1977, the council in my constituency succeeded in obtaining only a narrow majority. Why, therefore, is the Secretary of State frightened of elections? He cannot argue that, by some freak force of circumstances, it is impossible to change the parties controlling councils. The abolition of elections is denying the people the right to judge the legislators. Instead, there will be quangos. Is it not interesting that the


party committed to abolishing quangos is setting out to create many more? That point is emphasised by a group of nine members of the GLC who said that:
This will result in the replacement of a directly elected Labour council by a nominated Conservative council. We find this unacceptable. Much as we presently abhor the policies of the present administration at County Hall, we believe that judgement should be passed by the electorate and not by the Government.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) is quoted as saying recently:
I do not call councils with nominated people an elected Local Government. I call it an extension of patronage.
The freedom of the people to make their own judgment in the seven council areas is being taken away by the Government.
Councillor Michael Campbell, leader of Tyne and Wear, and his colleagues on the other metropolitan counties recently said in a letter:
We as leaders of the six metropolitan county councils which provide services to 11·2 million people do not claim that the present system of local government and finance is perfect. Indeed we would welcome a full and independent inquiry into these issues as a matter of urgency, as would most of the 3,000 organisations and individuals who have formally criticised the Government's proposals.
They are not dogmatically defending the councils. They are not afraid of change, no matter how deep and fundamental. They ask for a full inquiry and report that can be studied, and consultations, before there are any changes.
Why are the Government afraid of such activity? Why are they acting with such haste? By attacking our fundamental democratic rights the Government are going down a dangerous road, and many of the people whom I represent are frightened of where it will end. Tonight is the opportunity for Conservative Members to say, "Enough is enough."

Mr. Patrick Ground: Few people who have lived in London for the past 20 years or in the metropolitan counties for the past 10 years can be under the illusion that we have a system of local government that is other than extremely imperfect, extravagant, capable of improvement, and capable of greater economy and responsiveness. That must be particularly the case for those who have served on one of those authorities. I believe that they seldom get over the initial surprise that they feel at the unreasonable and extraordinary amounts of money spent often on comparatively simple functions. Those who pay the rates in those areas view with incredulity the amounts of money spent.
In all those areas, there are people who remember the performance of the smaller councils that served the smaller areas that existed before the present authorities. I have yet to meet one of those people who remember the smaller authorities who does not think that they and the county councils that went with them were a better form of administration, and a more economical and responsive structure than the London boroughs and district councils that succeeded them.
I believe that there could be considerable agreement, across the parties, that the GLC and the metropolitan counties are too big, too cumbersome, too unwieldy and seriously under-responsive to public opinion and the wishes of the elected councillors of whatever party.
I profoundly believe that if we are committing ourselves to dismembering the present far from perfect system of local government in London and the six metropolitan counties, Parliament is entitled to be satisfied that the system which is to replace it is better than the present system.
I would go further and say that it is the duty of Parliament to be satisfied that a new system will be better than the existing one. Reorganisation will greatly disrupt the lives of the 120,000 people who work full time for the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. In addition, the financial cost to the Government and the millions of people who would be affected by the reorganisation puts the onus upon the Government to show that they have devised a better system. They are a long way from doing so.
The Government have put no proposals on the new structure before the House. The White Paper "Streamlining the Cities", which has been referred to, said that the Government's tentative proposals are simpler than the present structure. When I consider the joint boards and structure plans and the number of subjects that can be resolved only through co-operation between authorities, it seems that the proposed structure will be more complex.
The present structure provides the authority to resolve matters on which no agreement is possible between boroughs. The proposed system merely offers co-operation between the boroughs, which may not always be forthcoming.
Near the heart of the Government's proposals is the wish for economy in public expenditure. The Government's experience of administration shows that savings are more likely to be made gradually against the background of a stable structure than after a major reorganisation during which functions are transferred to different authorities. Experience shows that such reorganisations generally lead to increased expenditure.
There is no reason to believe that the Government's proposals will lead to savings in public expenditure. The Bill will cost many millions of pounds to implement. We are told that there will be scope for economies in future but, as functions will not be abolished—merely fragmented—there is no evidence that the scope for saving will be greater under the new structure than under the present structure. It is said that it is necessary to curb the extravagance of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, but if Parliament provides the Government with power to cap the rates of extravagant authorities it will be sufficient for the Government to rate-cap an extravagant authority and unnecessary to abolish it.
The Government should not close their mind to the possibility that some local authority functions are better and more efficiently organised on a basis wider than that of a single borough such as an elected, London-wide authority. Parliament has chosen to organise some functions on such a basis under an elected authority in London since at least 1855. If the Government have discovered a principle of administration that suggests that the experience of 130 years is wholly misguided they should come to the House and explain their discovery. Many Conservative councillors in both county and borough and district councils believe that some services are more efficiently and effectively organised on a wider basis than that of a single borough.

Mr. Martin Stevens: My hon. Friend says that in his opinion there will be no saving of money. Does he accept that there is substantial duplication in many areas between the boroughs and districts, and the administrative counties?

Mr. Ground: The White Paper does not point to reduplication or elimination of functions. Indeed, the opposite would be true, because structure plans would need to be drawn up for each London borough. That is nonsense in planning terms.
I share the worries of my hon. Friends at the burden that is being placed upon district councillors and London borough councillors. Many of them, especially the able ones, are overworked in the areas that they represent. I doubt whether this additional burden should be placed upon them. There is no evidence that the track record of joint boards is any better than that of the present elected authorities.
For all those reasons, I propose to oppose the Bill. I hope that many hon. Members will do so to show the concern that the House feels for the principle that it must be satisfied that anything that comes before it in the reorganisation of local government is an improvement on the existing structure.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Excuses have been given for the introduction by the Government of this interim Bill, but they have not convinced me that there is any substantive reason why the legislation should be passed.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), who unfortunately has left the Chamber, said that he believed that the West Yorkshire county council should be abolished, but that had nothing to do with what is happening there. It had something to do with the recreation ground in Brixton on which the GLC is spending money.
In the debate there have been nothing but political references to the GLC and its abolition. Opposition Members have made allegations about the politics behind the interim Bill to abolish the county councils. It is correct to say that they are under attack because they are Labour authorities. The House is skating on thin ice when it introduces such legislation proposed by the political party in power.
Little or nothing has been said about how unpopular the Bill is, as well as the main Bill that will be introduced, to the people who work and live in the areas covered by the six metropolitan counties. I am a ratepayer in the area covered by the South Yorkshire county council. It is supported by ratepayers throughout south Yorkshire. There is little criticism of where it spends its money. I do not know how anyone can say that legislation should be introduced to stop elections in south Yorkshire and to stop miners like my constituents having ballots in south Yorkshire next year. Such things have been said in the House in the past fortnight. People who say them should think about what they are saying.
South Yorkshire county council has a good policy on buses and getting rid of waste. It has popular support in many areas. I want my authority to be supported and kept. I think that the vast majority of people in south Yorkshire want it to be supported and kept. It is a disgrace that we are introducing a Bill to replace that authority by an

unelected quango which will be answerable to no one in a ballot and which will operate on a budget prepared by people in Whitehall who know little or nothing about what is needed in my constituency and other constituencies covered by that county council.
I ask all hon. Members who are democrats to vote in favour of the amendment and against the Bill.

Mr. Piers Merchant: I have been entertained by the political acrobatics ably displayed by many both inside and outside the House on the subject of metropolitan counties. It almost seems that one cannot be a credible politician without having experienced at least one major change of view, and hopefully two. In view of the experiences of many, which I have heard and heard again, I regard it as prudent to be cautious. Therefore, I think that it is wise, commendable and practically inevitable for the Government to approach the issue with caution.
Taking the matter of the metropolitan counties as a whole, I do not have a closed mind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has shown himself to be flexible, too, over the methods of reorganisation. The fact that he first published the White Paper entitled "Streamlining the Cities" is a testimony to that fact. It incorporated proposals and general intentions, but not final decisions. My right hon. Friend need not have been so generous. I need refer only to the Rates Bill as an example of the swift execution of a manifesto commitment. The abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties was an equally firm and well-publicised manifesto commitment. Like many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I carried the commitment in the electoral literature on which we were elected. None the less, the Government have rightly held it to be correct to seek the views of others on this issue.
The Bill is part of those stages, but I have some reservations about its apparent effect. While it would clearly be pointless to hold elections on the certainty that abolition would follow in a matter of months, it is dangerous to alter elections on the basis of future planned abolition. The presence of elections in 1985 seems to point more to speeding up the main Bill. Thus speeded up, the Bill would render elections superfluous, as councils would go.
The Government have rightly rejected that temptation for the benefit of wider discussion and consultation on the main proposals. Closer study of the Bill reveals that it does not do what I feared, and many still fear—it does not simply abolish elections. Therefore, my initial fears are allayed. The Bill only gives my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the right to lay an order, which has to be approved by resolution of each House to be put into effect. We are not abolishing elections with the Bill—that is a future resolution. I am completely satisfied, because my right hon. Friend has given a clear assurance to the House that the order will be laid only after the House has given the main Bill a Second Reading. It is for those reasons that I support the Bill.
As time is running short I shall not devote attention to the clauses that I have mentioned—the information supplying clauses of the Bill that are equally important. I invite right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to cast their eyes over these important clauses on the provision of information, which are also part of the necessary progress of this important legislation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: From what we have heard from the Secretary of State, elected members are to be replaced, simply with the safeguard of an order later to come before the House—a fig leaf covering the Government's embarrassment—which will impose the possible future government for the six metropolitan areas and Greater London. That is a disgraceful proposal. The Secretary of State should be unwilling to bring the measure heic. It should embarrass not only him but his colleagues, as many Tory right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out. In the time available to me, I can say no more than that the Liberal party believes in local and regional government. We have believed in it for years. We have not changed our views about the GLC, as both the Labour and Tory parties have in the past few years.
The Secretary of State's argument that there is a precedent in law and constitution for this Bill is a sham, and is shallow, wrong, misleading and unprincipled. New authorities have been elected in the past to replace old ones. Here, unelected people are to form successor authorities for a year. They will be temporary guardians, trying to run large authorities on behalf of the electors. We do not even know whether the Government will then introduce a decent or workable Bill to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties.
People with no experience will come to these temporary authorities for a year. They will be in the hands of the Department of the Environment, which is what the Secretary of State clearly wants. He wants to keep control. He will perpetrate a system in which authorities with budgets of £2 million or £3 million will have a directly-elected council, but the GLC and ILEA, with combined GREAs of over £1,000 million, and the other authorities, with budgets of over £100 million, will not have elected representatives to take their decisions.
Power corrupts. Clearly this Government believe that absolute power is much more fun. They are playing with politics. Not until we have a written constitution and a bill of rights shall we be protected from such unconstitutional actions.
This year the Prime Minister proposes to suspend local government elections. Next year will she suspend the power of judges to give judgments while she revises the criminal law? The year after will she suspend the right of succession of the Prince of Wales to the throne so that she may consider whether a female should take over? By 1988 will she consider suspending elections to this House? It is the Prime Minister who should be suspended and her Government should go down with her.

Dr. David Clark: We have had a very serious debate which has been one of the best attended that I can remember on a Bill. It is appropriate that that should be the case. This is one of the most serious debates that we have ever had and it has been interesting to note the repeated misgivings of Conservative Members. I hope none of them suffers from standing by his principles. Most of them have been trying to explain that their opposition to the Bill is an attempt to defend an important principle, which I shall discuss shortly.
In the last Parliament, many of us found many of the actions of the Government distasteful and unpalatable, but

in this Parliament we are beginning to find the whole tone and tenor of the Government's actions unwelcome. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said before he reached his peroration, there are dangerous tendencies prevalent in the mood of the Conservative party of today. For the first time for decades the whole ethos of toleration that has typified the British way of life is being turned on its head.
Some of us regard the Bill as merely part of the unhappy catalogue of which the modern Conservative party cannot be proud. I was talking the other day to a gentleman who had returned from Brazil; he had come from a military dictatorship and he was catching up on the back editions of magazines. He said that he thought he had moved not from a military dictatorship to a democracy, but almost the other way round. He had read of the Government bribing people at GCHQ to leave their union and about their interference with the freedom of movement of people who were trying to picket. There have been the worrying developments in regard to the picket lines at Barking hospital. We have had the rate-capping legislation which will destroy and restrict the power of local democracy, and now we have this measure. It is an unhappy catalogue.
The purpose of the Bill is to abolish elections. In his speech the Secretary of State made various announcements about the main Bill, but wt., are not discussing it tonight, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has reminded the House. We are discussing a Bill concerned with elections and the arrangements to replace elected representatives by nominated people. It is ironic and sad to note that while we as a country and our Government are preaching to other countries in Latin America and in eastern Europe that they should hold more elections and grant more civil liberties, our Government are moving in a completely opposite direction. Such hypocrisy does not stand any Government in good stead.
Usually when we are discussing local government legislation we are faced with massive tomes running into many clauses, but not this time. Today we have a puny little Bill whose significance far belies its content of a mere 11 clauses. It is a cancerous little Bill that contains anti-democratic tendencies that would have warmed the heart of the likes of General Galtieri. The Bill is unique not only in that sense, but because it is an enabling Bill or, as the Secretary of State calls it, a paving Bill for the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC. But it contains a most dangerous and sinister concept, which I find very objectionable, as I hope all hon. Members do: it presumes the will of a future parliamentary decision.
We are faced with a Bill the first clause of which permits a Secretary of State to implement on repeal the ensuing clauses of the Bill—an action which will be taken by the Secretary of State if this House passes on Second Reading a yet unseen Bill. In a brave speech, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) described it as unknown territory, and many people of all shades of opinion would agree with that description.
I am concerned at the Secretary of State's statement that he will deal with the question only following the Second Reading in this House, but the long title of the Bill says that its purpose is to
Make provision for the composition of the Greater London Council and metropolitan county councils pending a decision by Parliament on their continued existence".
Are we talking about Parliament or about the elected dictatorship of the pay vote of the Conservative party in


this House? I suspect that the Secretary of State is advancing his argument because he knows that he will run into real trouble in the other House.

Mr. Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the House of Lords is a most valuable bulwark of freedom? Will he accept that it would be very rash for any Government of a different persuasion to move in the direction of the abolition of that magnificent place?

Dr. Clark: I wanted to advance a rather different reason why the Government might be against it, and the hon. Gentleman might find it rather amusing.
On Second Reading of the London Government Bill in 1966, leading for the Opposition, Mr. Quintin Hogg, who now occupies an eminent position in the other place, laid down some interesting guidelines concerning the removal of votes—something which did not take place. He said:
If we are to do a thing like that if we are to take away from electors the right to vote for a new council … we must point to three main arguments. The first is necessity; the second is consultation between the parties; and the third is that it is done in the interests of the electors".—[Official Report, 15 November 1966; Vol. 736, c. 350.]
I do not think that anyone in this House, including the Secretary of State, could argue that any of the three conditions then laid down have been adhered to in this Bill. If they had been, the Opposition might have been more considerate towards the Bill. I suspect that that is why the Secretary of State talks about the Second Reading stage and not, as the long title does, of a decision of Parliament.

Mr. Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Clark: I would rather not, because I want to give the Minister due time to reply to me.
The Bill is a rather ham-fisted way to reorganise local government. But before I leave that point I want to deal with one other important aspect of the Bill. Local government, as we all recognise, has two functions. The first is to be representative. The second is to provide services efficiently and effectively for the people concerned. Neither of those two functions has been covered adequately by the Bill.
Traditionally, the Conservative party has prided itself on being the party of business acumen and of sound money—a reputation that is becoming somewhat tarnished. In justifying the Bill, the Secretary of State describes it as bringing an end to a wasteful bureaucracy. He is rather coy on the figures when suggesting the saving. He talks of about £120 million. Independent analysts have considered the matter. The top management consultants Coopers and Lybrand have considered the likely cost of the reorganisation, and estimate an optimum net cost—an added cost to the ratepayers in the constituencies of hon. Members on both sides of the House—of between £36 million and £61 million a year. Today, there has been a notification from the chamber of commerce that it is no longer prepared to back the Government over this Bill until there is some evidence and guidance from the Government about the cost.
The truth of the matter is that the Government have not worked out the cost. They dare not do so, because they know from experience that all reorganisations are very costly. There will be a cost in terms of efficiency as well as of finance. I admit frankly that in 1972 I had grave

misgivings about the establishment of the metropolitan counties. However, I watched those authorities develop. In their initial period, I though that my worst fears had been realised. They seemed to have no sense of direction or purpose, and they seemed to be trying to create work. However, as the Member for a constituency in one of the metropolitan counties I watched that authority gradually establishing a role and forming a meaningful partnership with its constituent metropolitan boroughs. I believe that few voters now doubt the usefulness of the metropolitan counties.
I will not quote the evidence of the polls, because I do not want to rub it in.

Mr. Derek Conway: rose——

Dr. Clark: I have made it clear that I will not give way, and the hon. Gentleman does not represent a constituency in one of the metropolitan counties.
Tyne and Wear county council has played a magnificent role in economic development. It has assisted firms to survive. It has brought new industry into the area. Our metropolitan transport system is the envy of the world and in itself more than justifies the existence of Tyne and Wear county council. The Government intend to scrap all that.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: My hon. Friend has not mentioned the wonderful way in which Tyne and Wear county council has tackled land reclamation, beautifying the area out of all recognition.

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend is quite right. The northeast is now the most beautiful part of the United Kingdom. The Government intend to scrap all that.
Many hon. Members may feel that there is a case for reform, but even if there is such a case many people are worried about transferring authority into the hands of quangos—or qualgos, as some of them are now called. I remember the Prime Minister and the Conservative party ranting and raving in the 1970s about abolishing quangos. The present Government must have created more quangos than any previous Government, and this is yet another antidemocratic move.
Cannot the Secretary of State appreciate that such an upheaval cannot lead to good local government? In the next four or five years, there will be four types of local government for the metropolitan areas. This year, there are the metropolitan county councils. Next year, there will be representatives nominated by the district councils. From 1986 to 1989, there will be joint boards with budgets controlled by the Secretary of State. In 1989 the joint boards will be subject to rate capping. That will not be good for the morale of the staff or for efficiency. It is bad news for local government.
The other issue concerns the representative role of local government. If my constituents have problems arising out of county council matters, they go to their county councillors as they have surgeries. There is direct representation through which people can channel their complaints. Can the Minister advise my constituents to whom they will have to go when the interim boards are introduced and when the quangos are introduced if they want to push their democratic rights? Those are key points to which we expect answers.
If we try to distil all our thoughts about the Bill into one concept, our main objection is that it is undemocratic. In


spite of what I can only describe as the Secretary of State's wriggling at Question Time recently, when he was trying to justify the abolition of elections, he could not and cannot point to any precedents of elections being abolished and local authority functions being handed over to nominees. That is unprecedented, even in wartime. It is unbelievable that the Government should need to come to us to ask for such a power now.
If the Secretary of State wanted to abolish the metropolitan counties, he should have done things properly and had an appointed day, as has been the case in the past. I can sympathise with the Secretary of State's claim that it would have been wasteful to hold elections. I fully realise that, but the natural thing to do in those circumstances is to let local authorities continue in existence for another year. I found it amusing that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) suggested going a stage further than the Secretary of State. I am not sure whether she said that she would have appointed commissioners or commissars. If the Opposition had done that, I know what Conservative Members would have said, and quite rightly so.
We ultimately come down to asking why all the rush? Why do we have this Bill before us now? Why have the Government acted as they have? I am afraid that the answer is obvious. The Government have failed to persuade the electors in the metropolitan counties to change their allegiance, mostly from the Labour party. They have decided that, having failed to win the argument, they will close the ballot box. That is dangerous, pure and simple political vindictiveness of the lowest and worst type.
The speech of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 14 March was an honest statement, which made painful reading. It is worth repeating at greater length than did my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). In that speech, the message came out in all its glory. He said:
The Labour Party is the Party of division. In its present form it represents a threat to the democratic values"—
I ask the House, who is threatening democratic values now?—
—"and institutions on which our Parliamentary system is based. The GLC is typical of this new, modern, divisive version of Socialism. It must be defeated. So we shall abolish the GLC". Really, I never thought that I would hear a Secretary of State say such things. I find that more sad than anything else.
We live in a democracy and take democracy for granted. I do not want to appear to be lecturing the House, but democracy is fragile. It can be crushed by the jackboot as we saw in pre-war Italy and in Germany and in post-war Hungary and Czechoslovakia. We all joined in protesting against those developments. Democracy can also be destroyed in a less dramatic way. It can be destroyed surreptitiously by a little cut here and a little cut there. The Bill takes us just a little further down the road away from democracy. It is a dangerous precedent and I earnestly plead with Conservative Members to join us to defeat the Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): With this Bill the Government continue steadily to fulfil the commitments which they explicitly and clearly gave at the last

general election with regard to local government. 'The objective is to clear away some of the least effective of all the bits of the 1960s "big is beautiful" reorganisation mania—namely, the metropolitan counties and the GLC. Practically no one—including most of those responsible for inventing them—who has studied the history of local government since the war regards these very brief additions to England's local government scene as other than failures.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell)—[Interruption.] I shall follow the example set by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) are quite right. The boroughs and the districts are older and stronger. It is just possible that there may be some in this House who will not take my word for that judgment. There may even be one or two of my right hon. and hon. Friends who will not take my word for it. My right hon. Friend reminded us of the resolutions passed by Newcastle, Sheffield, the West Midlands district, the Tyne and Wear district, districts in Greater Manchester, Liverpool, Sefton and all the others. And of course the same goes, and has gone for years, for many of the boroughs in London and for the present leaders of the GLC.
We have had Mr. Livingstone perhaps too much in this debate, but it is worth recalling his words once again:
Clearly people would be better served if local government was provided by borough councils in the metropolitan areas 
Quite so. Perhaps Boase Massini Pollit and Univas, the GLC's advertising agency, could design one of its Kim. II Sung advertisements with those words on it. Personality cults have selective memories.
But the warnings that what had been done in the 1963 and 1972 Acts would fail go far further back than that and enjoy the support of people who might be expected to carry even more weight with the House than Kim II Livingstone. The evidence to the Herbert commission from the local authorities, and from the London Labour party, led by Herbert Morrison, was strongly, even passionately, in favour of the then status quo. In its role of defender of whatever bureaucracy happens to exist, the Labour party makes the same argument now, but of course in exactly the opposite direction.
Somewhat more consistent—and this goes back to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford said—were and are the great majority of Conservatives in London who argued then to Mr. Herbert Morrison, and argue now, for the transfer of functions to the boroughs. And now they have a national Government who have at last accepted that they have been right all along. That is exactly the case that my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford made.
As long ago as July 1974 the then deputy editor of the Evening Standard, Mr. Simon Jenkins—who is still by far the best writer on London local government matters—warned that the GLC was a
pseudo-regional authority with only a handful of London-wide services and a gargantuan committee system which could hardly have been better designed to stultify constructive and imaginative government.
I put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) that the committee structure of the GLC has to be set alongside the alleged complexity of what we propose.
The same writer argued that, inevitably, central Government took the real strategic decisions leaving


GLC councillors trundling round hamfistedly meddling in detailed local issues which ought never to concern them.
He urged abolition and found support from the then leader of Labour-controlled Camden, now the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who said that the situation then was one of "stalemate". The article ended with a prescient paragraph which reminds one that, much to the irritation of Ministers of the day, outside commentators are sometimes entitled to say "I told you so.
Mr. Jenkins wrote:
Perhaps the biggest irony is that the present two-tier system of regional/local government is precisely the one which Parliament has just imposed on the other big cities of England. All we can say to them is 'Beware, it doesn't work'.
He was right. It did not work. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) said, we are removing it.
The House may like to know that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has stuck to his view, and I pay tribute to him for that. He said in 1979 that the GLC had rightly been described as the slowest bureaucracy this side of the Kremlin and the sooner it was abolished the better. I am not sure on which side of the Kremlin the GLC now stands, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman still stands by his view.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Does the Minister accept that virtually everyone in London who has ever considered the local government of London has at one time or another said in a fit of pique that we should get rid of the GLC, but that most, on mature consideration, have decided that it is better to keep it?

Mr. Waldegrave: I take the hon. Gentleman's views more seriously than that.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Does my hon. Friend accept that we are not considering the substance of the Government's proposals because we do not know what they are? We are concerned that a Conservative Government propose to replace a directly elected authority, controlled by a Socialist majority, with an indirectly nominated authority with, happily, a Conservative majority. Would the Bill have been introduced if there had been a Conservative majority on the GLC?

Mr. Waldegrave: Of course it would. I imagine that if a Labour Government had been elected in 1979 or 1983 they, too, would have got on with implementing their policy. What would Boase, Massini, Roland Freeman, old Uncle Wilf Weekes and the rest have said then? Would Labour-controlled councils still have spent millions of pounds opposing a policy to cut off the top tier of local government, which was then Labour policy and, despite the confusion, probably remains Labour policy?
In any case, it would have made no difference. Even if all the advertising agencies had said what they were told to say, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—he seems to have slipped away—had told the authorities in advance that he would pay no attention. He said that they would set up no more inquiries, but would legislate so that these reforms would be enforced during the lifetime of the next Parliament. Where would all the arguments about voting have been then? When all the counties and upper tiers had gone, would

Boase, Massini still have been saying that every person in the country had lost the vote? Of course not. It is a bogus argument and always has been.
As there was quite a lot of support for single-tier local government, some—though not all—parts of the alliance favoured it, and the alliance manifesto promised the eventual abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC. Lest that be taken as meaning anything and thus possibly offend someone, it was to be done
in stages against the background of our proposals for the development of regional government.
I have taken a little time to pursue some of the fish in this particular barrel because the weight of vested interest, special pleading and party political games has disguised the facts.

Mr. Terry Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister trying to obfuscate the proceedings by deliberately gabbling like a St. James's park goose?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the House would be better advised to listen to the Minister. Then we may be able to hear what he is saying.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
I have taken a little time to pursue some of the fish in this particular barrel because vested interests have disguised the real arguments. I put it to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that there is a real consensus about the failure of the arrangements for local government in the metropolitan areas and in London. Some, of course, disagree, but I hope that even now the high ideals of the founding fathers may, against all the odds, be achieved. I respect them and understand their sadness that this part of their legacy has turned out to be the establishment not of the new Jerusalem but of several new towers of Babel.

Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Waldegrave: I have very little time.
I ask my right hon. Friends to accept that, in all humility and respect, their successors have concluded that what was then done would have been better left undone and now can be put right. The Bill is the first stage of that process. It does no more and no less than is necessary at this stage to carry our manifesto policy through.

Mr. Cormack: As the Bill is about anticipating the will of Parliament, will my hon. Friend make it plain why he equates a Second Reading of another Bill with a decision of Parliament? Are we to wait until the House of Lords as well as the House of Commons have passed the next Bill, about which we know so little, before this one is activated, or are we merely to have a Second Reading?

Mr. Waldegrave: The Conservative party provides not only a Government better than any Labour Government, but also a better Opposition. My hon. Friend, with his customary sense of good timing, came in at the moment in my speech when I intended to turn to his arguments. Some of my hon. Friends who do not necessarily oppose abolition—and I am not sure what the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) are on that matter—are worried about the provisions in the Bill for the transitional councils, and about the timing. I come now to those arguments.
There were three choices before us. We could have continued with the 1985 elections, as if nothing was


happening. We would then have had the whole business of a London-wide election to elect councillors for 11 months. There is no precedent for such a course in any previous reorganisation. The hon. Member for South Shields, in a significant intervention which ran contrary to the points made by hon. Members on the Opposition Back Benches, accepted that and said that it was perfectly valid to do away with the elections. He argued for something else. He argued for the second choice—the extension of the 11-month period of the councils.
The third choice was to set up transitional councils drawn from successor authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned a fourth course: that the elections should be abolished and my right hon. Friend should run the councils during the transitional year through commissioners. However, I doubt whether that would be much more popular with my hon. Friends, or with the House, than what we propose.
What are the arguments for and against extension and replacement by lower tier councillors? They have been well put today. To me the decisive argument is that, unlike what has happened in past reorganisations, the successor authorities already exist. Elected people are already there who are to be the recipients of the services. The job in the transitional year will be to prepare for the devolution of services. Surely it makes more sense to call in lower tier councillors to do that than to appoint the present upper tier councillors for another year, for appointed they would be. That is my answer to the hon. Member for South Shields. They would not have been elected, and they would have no mandate. They would be appointed by my right hon. Friend for an extra year for which they had not been elected. They would have no mandate. To do that would be wrong. I have to say to my hon. Friends that it would be extremely foolish[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: We cannot hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will be able to hear the Minister if it makes less noise.

Mr. Waldegrave: Not only would it be wrong to appoint these people for an extra year, but in my view it would also be foolish. We have many brave and hon. Members who say openly that they will do what they can to frustrate the will of Parliament if Parliament passes the main Bill. It would therefore be foolish to appoint them for a longer period.
If we accept that by far the most sensible course is to ask the successor councils to run the transitional period, the only argument that remains is about the timing. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden referred to the timing of the Bill and to the exact composition of the councils. On timing, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should surely have stilled some of the concern—he stilled the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant)—by his assurance that no order would be made for the suspension of elections until after the Second Reading of the main Bill.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South will accept that I, of all people, know that there is another place in Parliament. I hope that he will not accuse me of disregarding the traditions of that place.
 
If the main Bill fell at that stage, my right hon. Friend would have the powers in this Bill to reinstate the elections. Clause 1(2) and (3) enable him to do that, and that is what he would do. I do not think that my hon. Friend need be too worried about that.
If the main Bill fell at Second Reading in this House, let alone falling subsequently, the elections would be reinstated, and I do not think that it should lead to the problems that were properly investigated and discussed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), in an intervention at the beginning of the debate, asked whether we could have a separate Bill, introduced after the main Bill, so that they ran alongside each other. I see no difference of principle between having a shorter, separate Bill—passed earlier than the main Bill—and the activation of this Bill after Second Reading of the main Bill.
We could not sensibly put a provision for elections in the main Bill, because there is a chance that that Bill might not be passed until after the elections, which would be absurd.

Dr. David Clark: How can the Minister square his statement that the Bill will not be triggered until after the Second Reading of the main Bill in this House with the long title of this Bill which says that it is to
make provision for the composition … pending a decision by Parliament"?

Mr. Waldegrave: I have made the position entirely clear. The powers are in this Bill. If Parliament does not pass the main Bill, the elections can be reinstated. It is absolutely clear. The hon. Gentleman may not have read the Bill with the necessary care and attention.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury has been persuaded by my comments. I do not think that there is any matter of principle between us.
The make-up of the transitional councils flows logically and inexorably from the decision to ask the lower-tier councils—the successor authorities—to oversee the 11-month transition. The transitional authorities will obviously reflect the political balance in the lower-tier authorities. That will be the inevitable result of basing the transitional council on the successor democratic councils rather than on a process of appointment by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend confident that the London borough councils will be able to find enough councillors to serve on the nominated authorities? Those people will have to spend time in London during the day throughout those 11 months.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. We have discussed the matter with representatives of the boroughs and I am satisfied that for the 11-month period, during which there will be no need to set a rate or work out a budget, that will be possible.
I say again to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that the vigour and force of his eloquence led one almost to believe that the transitional councils would be in existence for a prolonged period or that they would become an established part of our local government scene. We are talking about only 11 months, and I hope that that fact moderates his views.

Dr. Cunningham: How can the Minister say that what is to happen in the GLC area is logical? Does he believe that his right hon. and hon. Friends would accept it if a Labour Government imposed a Labour administration in Sussex, Surrey or a Tory-controlled city?

Mr. Waldegrave: If a Labour Government were to carry out their pledge to abolish the counties—about which we have heard rather a lot—and if the successor districts in a particular area were more Labour-controlled than the previous council—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If Labour Members stopped bellowing like demented sheep, they might hear the answer. If the Labour party abolished the county councils and the succeeding districts had a different balance of political power, they would have a different balance of political power. The hon. Gentleman is a brilliant political analyst.
There is one thing that is unprecedented about the Bill.[Interruption.] I refer to the fact that every previous local government reorganisation has piled new levels and tiers of government one on top of the other. This is the first Government to be committed to removing some of the superstructure of government from our people.

Mr. Barron: rose——

Mr. Waldegrave: If there is one thing—[Interruption.]—that this——

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are about four minutes to go, and the Minister should be given a fair hearing.

Mr. Waldegrave: The one thing that this Government believe is that they found a country which was over-governed and that had far too heavy a weight of government on it. The Bill is intended to relieve that weight. I hope we have been able to show that much of the concern expressed today about the Bill, and some of the anxieties expressed by particular groups about abolition, are not well founded. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already mentioned proposals to meet points raised by those anxious to protect some of the good things—and of course there have been good things—done by the metropolitan councils.
Land reclamation has been mentioned, and I pay tribute to some of that work. Good work has also been done on the arts, historic buildings, sport and on the housing mobility scheme in London. We will look after those things—[Interruption.] In some other areas, such as the quantification of savings to ratepayers, the Bill will enable us and the successor authorities to turn our present estimates into harder figures by ensuring that the necessary information is made available. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) pointed out that those figures are obviously needed, and they certainly are. We have broad estimates and with the information powers in the Bill we shall be able to put flesh on those bones.
In other areas, such as the suspension of elections and the make-up of the transitional councils, I hope that I have shown that the argument in the House today more or less exactly mirrors the discussions that we have had amongst ourselves. I hope that we have shown why we believe that there is an entirely respectable and legitimate case for deciding in the end as we did. Having listened—although there has not been much sign of that—I hope that Opposition Members will come to the same conclusion.

Mr. Allen McKay: What will happen to those who are now employed by the county councils and are members of the district councils? Will they automatically be disfranchised rather than employing themselves?

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Gentleman plays on a weak wicket there. First, he should advise his hon. Friends and his colleagues in the metropolitan councils to allow the Government to talk to the employees—[Interruption.]—as that is in the interests of the staff. If hon. Members had the interest of the staff at heart, they would encourage them to talk to us sensibly about their future so that we can put matters on a clear footing.

Mr. Nellist: rose——

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman made a long and I must say rather boring speech, and I think that we have had enough of him today.
The policy is perfectly sensible and reasonable. The policy of moving towards single tier administration in the metropolitan counties and in London is supported, behind their hands, by many on the Labour side and in local government, as well as by the great majority of those involved in Conservative local government. It ends a long period of reports, arguments and uncertainty, during which confidence in the arrangements made in 1963 and 1972 has steadily ebbed away. Indeed, they never had much support in the first place. The legislation fulfils a manifesto commitment which many in the Conservative party fought long and hard to obtain. Many Conservative Back Benchers have a great commitment to this policy, having fought in the metropolitan counties and in London for many years to obtain a commitment to the simplification of the structure of big city government. Labour Members should not treat that too trivially. The Bill is the first step towards fulfilling that real commitment, and I urge the House to support it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 300.

Division No. 245]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Bruce, Malcolm


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Buchan, Norman


Alton, David
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Anderson, Donald
Campbell, Ian


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ashdown, Paddy
Canavan, Dennis


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Ashton, Joe
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cartwright, John


Baldry, Anthony
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clarke, Thomas


Barron, Kevin
Clay, Robert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Cohen, Harry


Beith, A. J.
Coleman, Donald


Bell, Stuart
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Benn, Tony
Conway, Derek


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Benyon, William
Corbett, Robin


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bidwell, Sydney
Cormack, Patrick


Blair, Anthony
Craigen, J. M.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Crowther, Stan


Boyes, Roland
Cunningham, Dr John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Deakins, Eric






Dewar, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dobson, Frank
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dormand, Jack
Michie, William


Douglas, Dick
Mikardo, Ian


Dubs, Alfred
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Miscampbell, Norman


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Nellist, David


Fatchett, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Faulds, Andrew
O'Brien, William


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Neill, Martin


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Flannery, Martin
Parry, Robert


Forrester, John
Patchett, Terry


Foster, Derek
Pavitt, Laurie


Foulkes, George
Pendry, Tom


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Penhaligon, David


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Pike, Peter


George, Bruce
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Prescott, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Godman, Dr Norman
Radice, Giles


Golding, John
Randall, Stuart


Gould, Bryan
Redmond, M.


Ground, Patrick
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Robertson, George 


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Haynes, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Hayward, Robert
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Rowlands, Ted


Heffer, Eric S.
Ryman, John


Hicks, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sheerman, Barry


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Home Robertson, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hoyle, Douglas
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Snape, Peter


Janner, Hon Greville
Soley, Clive


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Spearing, Nigel


John, Brynmor
Steel, Rt Hon David


Johnston, Russell
Steen, Anthony


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stott, Roger


Kennedy, Charles
Strang, Gavin


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Straw, Jack


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Tapsell, Peter


Kirkwood, Archibald
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Knox, David
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Lead bitter, Ted
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Leighton, Ronald
Tinn, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Torney, Tom


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Litherland, Robert
Wainwright, R.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wareing, Robert


McCartney, Hugh
Weetch, Ken


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Welsh, Michael


McGuire, Michael
White, James


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Maclennan, Robert
Winnick, David


McNamara, Kevin
Woodall, Alec


Marek, Dr John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Marshall, David (Shettleston)



Martin, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maxton, John
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


Maynard, Miss Joan






NOES


Adley, Robert
Fox, Marcus
 

Aitken, Jonathan
Franks, Cecil


Alexander, Richard
Freeman, Roger


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gale, Roger


Amess, David
Galley, Roy


Ancram, Michael
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Arnold, Tom
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Ash by, David
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Aspinwall, Jack
Glyn, Dr Alan


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Goodlad, Alastair


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Gorst, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Gow, Ian


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Greenway, Harry


Batiste, Spencer
Gregory, Conal


Beggs, Roy
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Bellingham, Henry
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bendall, Vivian
Grist, Ian


Berry, Sir Anthony
Grylls, Michael


Best, Keith
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Body, Richard
Hanley, Jeremy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hannam, John


Bottomley, Peter
Harris, David


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Harvey, Robert


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Haselhurst, Alan


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hawksley, Warren


Brinton, Tim
Hayes, J.


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hayhoe, Barney


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Browne, John
Henderson, Barry


Bruinvels, Peter
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hickmet, Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hill, James


Budgen, Nick
Hind, Kenneth


Bulmer, Esmond
Hirst, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butler, Hon Adam.
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Butterfill, John
Holt, Richard


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hooson, Tom


Carttiss, Michael
Hordern, Peter


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Howard, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Chope, Christopher
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cockeram, Eric
Hunter, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Irving, Charles


Coombs, Simon
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cope, John
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Crouch, David
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dicks, Terry
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dorrell, Stephen
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Key, Robert


Dunn, Robert
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Tony
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knowles, Michael


Evennett, David
Lang, Ian


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Latham, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fallon, Michael
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Farr, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Favell, Anthony
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lightbown, David


Fletcher, Alexander
Lilley, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael






Luce, Richard
Rowe, Andrew


Lyell, Nicholas
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


McCrindle, Robert
Ryder, Richard
 

McCurley, Mrs Anna
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


McCusker, Harold
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


MacGregor, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Maclean, David John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Madel, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Maginnis, Ken
Shersby, Michael


Major, John
Silvester, Fred


Malins, Humfrey
Sims, Roger


Malone, Gerald
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maples, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Marland, Paul
Speller, Tony


Marlow, Antony
Spencer, Derek


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mates, Michael
Squire, Robin


Maude, Hon Francis
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stanley, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stern, Michael


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mellor, David
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stokes, John

 
Moate, Roger
Sumberg, David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Montgomery, Fergus
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moore, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mudd, David
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Neale, Gerrard
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Neubert, Michael
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Newton, Tony
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, J.
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Normanton, Tom
Tracey, Richard


Norris, Steven
Trippier, David


Onslow, Cranley
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ottaway, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Page, John (Harrow W)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Viggers, Peter


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Waddington, David


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pattie, Geoffrey
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Waller, Gary


Pollock, Alexander
Ward, John


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Powell, William (Corby)
Watson, John


Powley, John
Watts, John


Price, Sir David
Wheeler, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Whitfield, John


Raffan, Keith
Whitney, Raymond


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wiggin, Jerry


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Wolfson, Mark


Renton, Tim
Wood, Timothy


Rhodes James, Robert
Woodcock, Michael


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Rifkind, Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Noes:


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Rost, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order. No. 41 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 208.

Division No. 246]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Aitken, Jonathan
Fox, Marcus
 

Alexander, Richard
Franks, Cecil


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Freeman, Roger


Amess, David
Gale, Roger


Ancram, Michael
Galley, Roy
 

Arnold, Tom
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Ashby, David
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Aspinwall, Jack
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Goodlad, Alastair


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Gorst, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Gow, Ian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Batiste, Spencer
Greenway, Harry


Beggs, Roy
Gregory, Conal


Bellingham, Henry
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Bendall, Vivian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Grist, Ian


Best, Keith
Grylls, Michael


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Body, Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hanley, Jeremy


Bottomley, Peter
Hannam, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Harris, David


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Harvey, Robert


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Haselhurst, Alan


Braine, Sir Bernard
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Brinton, Tim
Hawksley, Warren


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hayes, J.


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hayhoe, Barney


Browne, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bruinvels, Peter
Henderson, Barry


Bryan, Sir Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hickmet, Richard


Budgen, Nick
Hill, James


Bulmer, Esmond
Hind, Kenneth


Burt, Alistair
Hirst, Michael


Butler, Hon Adam
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butterfill, John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Holt, Richard


Carttiss, Michael
Hooson, Tom


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hordern, Peter


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howard, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Churchill, W. S.
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Colvin, Michael
Hunter, Andrew

 
Coombs, Simon
Irving, Charles


Cope, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Couchman, James
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Crouch, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Dicks, Terry
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
 

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dunn, Robert
Key, Robert


Durant, Tony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Evennett, David
Knowles, Michael


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lang, Ian


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Latham, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Farr, John
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Favell, Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Fletcher, Alexander
Lightbown, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lilley, Peter 


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)






Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Rowe, Andrew


Lord, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Luce, Richard
Ryder, Richard


Lyell, Nicholas
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


McCrindle, Robert
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Sayeed, Jonathan


McCusker, Harold
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


MacGregor, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maclean, David John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Shersby, Michael


Madel, David
Silvester, Fred


Maginnis, Ken
Sims, Roger


Major, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malins, Humfrey
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Malone, Gerald
Speller, Tony


Maples, John
Spencer, Derek


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marlow, Antony
Squire, Robin


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mates, Michael
Stanley, John


Maude, Hon Francis
Stern, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mellor, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stokes, John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Monro, Sir Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter


Montgomery, Fergus
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Moore, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mudd, David
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Neale, Gerrard
Thornton, Malcolm


Neubert, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Newton, Tony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholls, Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Nicholson, J.
Trippier, David


Normanton, Tom
Twinn, Dr Ian


Norris, Steven
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Onslow, Cranley
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ottaway, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Page, John (Harrow W)
Waddington, David


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Waldegrave, Hon William


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Walden, George


Patten, John (Oxford)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Pawsey, James
Waller, Gary
 

Peacock. Mrs Elizabeth
Ward, John


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Pollock, Alexander
Watson, John


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Watts, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Powley, John
Wheeler, John


Price, Sir David
Whitfield, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Whitney, Raymond


Raffan, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wolfson, Mark


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Wood, Timothy


Renton, Tim
Woodcock, Michael


Rhodes James, Robert
Yeo, Tim


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)

 
Rifkind, Malcolm
Younger, Rt Hon George


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)



Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roe, Mrs Marion
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)



Rost, Peter





NOES


Abse, Leo
Anderson, Donald


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Alton, David
Ashdown, Paddy





Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Ashton, Joe
Harman, Ms Harriet


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Baldry, Anthony
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Barron, Kevin
Haynes, Frank


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hayward, Robert
 

Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Beith, A. J.
Heffer, Eric S.


Bell, Stuart
Hicks, Robert


Benn, Tony
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Benyon, William
Home Robertson, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hoyle, Douglas


Blair, Anthony
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Janner, Hon Greville


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
John, Brynmor


Bruce, Malcolm
Johnston, Russell


Buchan, Norman
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Kennedy, Charles


Campbell, Ian
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Canavan, Dennis
Kirkwood, Archibald


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Knox, David


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lead bitter, Ted


Cartwright, John
Leighton, Ronald


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Clarke, Thomas
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Clay, Robert
Litherland, Robert


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cohen, Harry
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Coleman, Donald
McCartney, Hugh


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Conway, Derek
McGuire, Michael


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Corbett, Robin
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Corbyn, Jeremy
Maclennan, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
McNamara, Kevin


Craigen, J, M.
Marek, Dr John


Crowther, Stan
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Martin, Michael


Cunningham, Dr John
Maxton, John


Dalyell, Tam
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Deakins, Eric
Michie, William


Dewar, Donald
Mikardo, Ian


Dobson, Frank
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Dormand, Jack
Miscampbell, Norman


Douglas, Dick
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dubs, Alfred
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Nellist, David


Eastham, Ken
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Edwards, Bob (Wh'mpt'n SE)
O'Brien, William


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
O'Neill, Martin


Fatchett, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Faulds, Andrew
Parry, Robert


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Patchett, Terry


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pavitt, Laurie


Flannery, Martin
Pendry, Tom


Forrester, John
Penhaligon, David


Foster, Derek
Pike, Peter


Foulkes, George
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Prescott, John


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


George, Bruce
Radice, Giles


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Randall, Stuart


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Rathbone, Tim


Godman, Dr Norman
Redmond, M.


Golding, John
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Gould, Bryan
Richardson, Ms Jo


Ground, Patrick
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey






Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Robertson, George
Stott, Roger


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Strang, Gavin


Rooker, J. W.
Straw, Jack


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Tapsell, Peter


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Ryman, John
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Sedgemore, Brian
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Sheerman, Barry
Tinn, James


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Torney, Tom


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Wainwright, R.


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Wareing, Robert


Skinner, Dennis
Weetch, Ken


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Welsh, Michael


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)
White, James


Snape, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Soley, Clive
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Spearing, Nigel
Winnick, David





Woodall, Alec
Tellers for the Noes:


Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Don Dixon.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Committee tomorrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (INTERIM PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Orders of the Day — British Nationality

Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the British Nationality (Fees) Regulations 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 230), dated 29th February 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th March, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that the debate on the Prayer must end at half-past 11. I ask hon. Members who do not wish to take part in the debate to leave the Chamber as quietly as possible.

Mr. Howell: These regulations must be prayed against because they are oppressive for families with children and seek to justify the most blatant profiteering from nationality applications. They write off a £3·8 million windfall profit and in their operation we see all the prejudices which the Government can display against British citizens of whom they disapprove. Nowhere is this prejudice shown more clearly than in the unique treatment of the athlete, Miss Zola Budd, whose case I shall return to shortly.
The Sub-committee on Race Relations in its report to the House on 4 May 1983 said:
We believe that it is fundamental that a person who is statutorily qualified ought to be able to apply for citizenship. This is not akin to applying for a television licence. The full costs recovery principle … takes no account of this … There are serious social implications in preventing long-settled immigrants from exercising their right to full citizenship. This is particularly true when those groups feel a justifiable sense of grievance about their acceptance by our society.
I believe that statement by the Select Committee was more than justified and should have been the guiding principle for the Home Office.
For 100 years that fundamental principle has been upheld for everyone who was born in this country. No one was priced out or penalised financially when applying for nationality. It is a reflection upon the Government's approach that that is still the situation in many other, countries. For example, in the United States of America the fee is £22; in Canada, it is £5; in Australia, there is no charge. The new fee of £55 for children that we are discussing represents a 57 per cent. increase in the cost of applying for nationality. That means that families with children, especially one-parent families, will have to bear a very heavy burden if they exercise their rights. Yet the Government's own White Paper claims that
the new fee system will direct the benefits of the reduction in fee levels towards families".
That is transparently not happening; it is transparent dishonesty.
A single person who has one child and is seeking registration under the new regulations, will pay £110, as against £105 under the previous proposals. That shows that there has been something of a confidence trick in the Government's approach to these matters.
Before 1981 there was no registration fee for minors. The registration fee for children has risen in four years from nothing to £55. That is a disgrace.
Since January 1981, certain children born here and obliged to seek registration pay the £55, but before 1981 such children did not even have to register; their rights were their birthrights. Under these proposals, they are providing a new source of revenue for the Government.
These children are the children of the least well off. They are the children of students, of refugees, of immigrants, and of single parents. Can this country descend to such a level as to impose charges of that sort for the birthright applications of the worst off members of our society? We can compare those children with the children, nearly all white, who are exempted from the huge increases under the orders—children born overseas of British fathers who have a right of abode here because their fathers are citizens by descent. Such children may have no other connection with this country than that their grandparents were British, yet the cost of their citizenship is now to be fixed at £10, compared with the £55 paid by children in the other category.
The position is wholly unfair. No one should be denied access to that most precious of all our rights, British citizenship, by an inability to meet the charges being levied by the Government.
Under any system of accounting used by the Home Office—the old system or the new one—the Home Office must have made a profit. That is the case against the whole of the Home Office policy. It would have made a profit under the old system in 1982, as well as making a profit under the new system. Therefore, there was no case whatever to come to this House in 1981 in order to put up the fees for the year 1982. Indeed, the Home Office estimated that there would be only 15,000 applications for registration in 1982–83. It was miles out when it made that estimate. There has never been such a low figure as 15,000 in any one of the previous 10 years; in fact, in 1981 there were not 15,000 but 40,000 applications.
The Home Office estimated that registrations would run at two and a half times the number of naturalisations, and on that basis—even on its own figures—it should have been expecting 35,000 applications. In fact, there were 70,000 applications, not 35,000. Because it has been working on suspect and inaccurate figures, the Home Office has made a huge profit. In addition to that profit, the Home Office has made a windfall of £3·8 million out of the change whereby applicants now have to pay in advance of registration when under the old system they paid when they received their naturalisation. What has happened to that windfall? Have the profits made out of the applicants for British citizenship been added to Treasury funds? That would be a disgrace. It would mean that when the figures were announced to the House the Home Office was working on inaccurate data.
The enormous windfall profit should have been used to reduce the fees to well below what is proposed in the regulations. We welcome the reduction in the adult fee, so far as it goes, but the windfall enjoyed by the Home Office should be reflected in the fee. It is still far too high, and we should pray against the regulations.
If the inflated fees produced a new efficiency in the processing of applications, they might be justified, but the reverse is the case. In 1977, the nationality division processed about 24,000 applications. In 1981–82 it processed 50,449, in 1982–83 79,418, in 1983–84 67,332 and in 1984–85 66,000. Those figures can be translated into the cost of a certificate, with the following result: in 1981–82 each certificate granted cost £68, in 1982–83 £57, and in 1983–84, £75. In 1984–85 the cost will be £78.
In spite of the reform of police procedures and the alleged streamlining, the cost of a certificate will be 14 per cent. higher in 1985 than it was in 1981 and 36 per cent. higher than in 1982–83. That is the main case for voting


against the regulations. Costs have risen, but the delays and frustrations have increased. According to paragraph 7 of the White Paper,
At times all these requests"—
for information, leaflets, and forms—
could not be met".
That quotation is the understatement of the year. The truth is that at one stage there were 8,000 unanswered letters in the nationality division of the Home Office—5,000 unopened. The leaflets in ethnic languages which had been promised were not available until two months after they were due. Advice agencies could sometimes get supplies of nationality forms only through Members of Parliament, and the nationality division was unobtainable on the telephone for long periods to solicitors and advice agency staff seeking to look after the pressing claims of those most concerned about the progress of their registration. In the light of these considerations, the regulations deserve to be contemptuously rejected tonight.
Let us contemplate the treatment of the distinguished athlete Zole Budd in the light of the treatment meted out to all other applicants. That young lady will have no difficulty in finding the required fee for her application. The Minister of State has admitted that this young athlete has been accorded exceptional treatment because she is an exceptional athlete. In practice, that means that within 24 hours of being brought into the country by the Daily Mail, it is possible for that newspaper to offer an assurance about her nationality being granted. We have heard little in this controversy about her coach Mr. Pieter Labuschagne. What is he doing here? Has he a work permit? If so, when did he apply for it and when was it granted? May we now take it that other applicants for British citizenship will be able to bring their coaches or tutors with them? It is beyond question that the procedures of the Home Office have been prostituted at the behest of the Daily Mail. Indeed, it seems to follow direct pressure from Sir David English, the editor of that paper. The Home Office has been used to facilitate this disgraceful newspaper stunt and obscene marketing operation.

Ms. Clare Short: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real hurt in this is to all of our constituents who have been waiting in queues for years? It has now been revealed how humiliated by the system they are as, when it wants, the Home Office can grant citizenship in 10 days. This case is telling our constituents that the Home Office regards them as nothing, that it does not respect them and that it does not care about them.

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The extent of the sordid commercialism can be judged by the House when I tell it that several television programmes, including the BBC's "Sportsnight"—I know of others—have been offered an exclusive interview with Miss Budd, possibly done by the Daily Mail's chief sports writer, Ian Wooldridge, for a fee of £15,000. The agent used to peddle that deal is a gentleman named Mr. Bernard Falk and The Guardian reports today that Mr. Falk and his company, Falkman Films, will handle the world rights of the girl, now that she has British citizenship. The Guardian also reports that Adidas is anxious to become

involved, that the South African newspaper Rapport has paid £25,000 for the South African rights alone, that the Daily Mail has set up a trust fund—

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell: No.

Mr. Hanley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What does this have to do with nationality fees?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): As long as the right hon. Gentleman is relating what he says to nationality fees, as he is, he is quite in order.

Mr. Howell: I shall shortly come even closer to the obligations of the Home Office to make inquiries before taking any fees. That is a matter of major anxiety. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will contain himself. The Daily Mail has set up a trust fund which is believed to be—[Interruption.] Whether I believe it is quite a different matter from that which the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) is making from a sedentary position. The trust fund is believed to be about £200,000 and will be offset by some of the financial deals that I have described.
Under the British Nationality Act 1981, when the fees are received and before certificates are granted, the financing of such minors, their sponsorship, resources and future in Britain must be investigated. That is provided for in section 3(1) of the Act.
All these matters that I have brought to the attention of the House ought properly to have been investigated by the Home Secretary. It has been impossible for the Home Office to do any such thing within the time-scale of less than one month of this case.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does my right hon. Friend not think that the speed with which the paperwork for Zola Budd's case was dealt is quite surprising? Does he not think it possible that the Home Office was in touch with the Daily Mail and with people in South Africa before Zola Budd left South Africa so that this matter could be sorted out well in advance and so that the Daily Mail would get its scoop when she finally arrived here?

Mr. Howell: That may well have been a consideration.
Whatever the truth about the role of these organisations, including International Marketing Group, Mr. Mark McCormack's organisation—whether they were involved at an early stage and then withdrew, as I believe may have been possible, where the Daily Mail's commercial interest and its secret arrangements for hiding this young lady begin and whether the Daily Mail and its staff are directly involved—all these matters have to be investigated and should have been investigated before nationality was granted.
If the Minister cannot tell us the facts tonight, he has a duty to inquire and to report back, or the House must take it upon itself to do so.
The Minister has another duty under the Act. He has to make sure that the future of any applicant lies in this country. That is something else he has dealt with in less than a month.
I have some up-to-date news on this matter which I can bring to the attention of the House. A Johannesburg newspaper is today running an interview with Estelle Budd, the sister of Zola Budd. According to that paper, Estelle Budd says that Zola told her on the telephone


yesterday that she had no intention of living in Britain. She will be back in South Africa next year. That is a quote in a South African newspaper. It is not for me to believe it, it is for the Minister to investigate it.

Mr. Hanley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I desire the lowest possible nationality fees, but I fail to see what this has to do with his prayer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a matter for the Chair whether a right hon. or hon. Member addressing the House is in order. I say to the hon. Gentleman only that it is a very short debate, that interventions, of course, make speeches longer, and that other, hon. Members want to take part.

Mr. Howell: the point is very simply that if that has happened, if this lady has said that her sister—[SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: "If."] Well, that has to be investigated, and it is the duty of the House to investigate it, never mind the Home Secretary, because, if it turns out to be true, this nationality has been mischievously granted on a false premise—the premise that this lady's home is now in this country, whereas she has been reported as saying that she will not be in this country more than a year or so. That is a very serious matter indeed. If it was the case of anyone in the constituency of any one of us, we all know that, if false statements had been made, nationality would immediately be cancelled by the Home Office Ministers, with the support of Government Back-Benchers.
Furthermore, none of this sordid commercialism has got much to do with the Olympic ethic or with the Olympic games.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must relate what he is saying to fees.

Mr. Howell: Indeed, Sir, I shall keep coming back to fees. I am saying that the Home Office itself has no right to accept fees on the basis of somebody simply participating in the Olympic games. That is exactly what has happened in this case. That is why this case is absolutely relevant to the order before us.
The Home Office action in accepting the fees from that lady is already proving divisive as Wendy Sly, a distinguished athlete, has effectively made clear in the past day or two. In the selection for the British team, which must take place before the end of May, the chances of at least three other women athletes will be jeopardised after they have dedicated years of their lives to the hope of representing this country in the Olympic games.
Furthermore, the unseemly haste to grant British nationality in this case has caused intense resentment among the 70,000 of our constituents already in the queue. I have been inundated, as no doubt have other hon. Members, with correspondence about such cases.
As we learnt today, another consequence of the Zola Budd case is that our embassy staff in South Africa have been swamped with applications as never before. The Government must be embarrassed by that.
When any Member of Parliament decides that it is his duty to raise the role of the Daily Mail he must naturally expect to be given the fullest treatment of vitriolic filth for which that newspaper is justifiably renowned. I therefore considered it the supreme accolade yesterday to be associated in one and the same article with both the late Senator McCarthy and Dr. Goebbels. Such compliments

and the source from which they come may be judged by the track record of Sir David English, himself a distinguished exponent of the arts that he condemns.
Was it the same Sir David English who was involved in the Millhench affair and the forgery on House of Commons notepaper? Was it the same David English whose disgraceful allegations about Don Ryder and a British Leyland slush fund ended so abjectly? I could go on to mention the Ted Short affair, not to mention the "12 Lies of Labour" issued just before the general election, 10 of which turned out on investigation to be attributable to the Daily Mail and not to the Labour party.
Sir David English and the Home Office now say, of course, that the nationality application and fees were accepted to give the lady the opportunity to compete in the Olympic games. Yet the same Government and the same Daily Mail fought with might and main to stop any British athlete from competing in the last Olympic games four years ago.
Ministers have argued that a quick decision had to be taken because the lady was approaching the age of 18, but the regulations require only that the application is made before that age. It can be processed afterwards. The authorities must also have regard to length of residence.
The Home Office decision in this case must be judged against its own Act, under which the regulations are being made, which denies citizenship rights to children born in the United Kingdom who are stateless and unable to travel, to stateless children born outside the United Kingdom to British citizen parents, and to wives who have waited for up to three years without their husbands being able to join them until they have obtained their citizenship rights.
The Opposition are pleased when any citizen entitled to British citizenship decides to exercise that right. We would like all citizens to exercise that right, if they want to, and to be treated similarly.
If we felt, as a result of this case, that every other applicant was now to be dealt with in a month, in two months or in three months, we would be delighted, but we all know that nothing could he further from the truth. In this case, the Home Office has made a sporting judgment. It has done so uniquely, without being asked to do so by the governing body of the sport concerned. It has apparently done so without the initiative of the Minister with responsibility for sport, who seems not to have been consulted on the application.

Mr. John Carlisle: rose——

Mr. Howell: I shall not give way, because of the time. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Zola Budd might well be an outstanding athlete of great potential. On sporting grounds, I hope that she achieves personal success, to which every international aspires. But she is the person for whom I feel most sorry in this case. She has been exposed to tremendous pressures by the antics of the Daily Mail and the collusion of the Home Office, pressures which would be far too great for athletes with 10 times her amount of maturity. No young girl at 17 should be put in that position. Nor should she have been allowed to cause such concern to her fellow and future sports colleagues, or to become such a cause of resentment to other citizens.
At the end of the day, the responsibility for this situation lies not with the Daily Mail, but with the Home


Secretary. He has made a serious misjudgment. We shall vote against the order, not least to register our protest at the treatment of that case.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): Before the debate began, many people must have been wondering why the Opposition had sought it. Now they must be amazed. The Opposition are praying against regulations which prescribe significantly lower fees for the majority of applicants. For the first time since before the first world war, fees are coming down, not going up. In real terms, they are now lower than when the Government took office in 1979—back to the 1976 level, in the case of registrations, and nearly back to 1976 levels for naturalisation.
Considering that under the Labour Government the registration fee went up from £2 to no less than £37·50, an 18-fold increase, and that the fees for naturalisation went up from £30 to £90, a threefold increase, one can only be amazed at the bare-faced effrontery of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell).
The reductions made by the Government are a real achievement, bearing in mind in particular that we are keeping to our aim of recovering full costs, and are not asking for any significant subsidy from the taxpayer. Faced with such good news, I suppose one had to expect that the Opposition would try to obscure the achievement by diversionary tactics. What we were not entitled to expect was that those diversionary tactics would take the form of a petty mean-minded attack on the Home Secretary's decision to give Zola Budd a chance to qualify for the Olympics. What the right hon. Gentleman is saying—let us get this straight—is that, if he had been in office, he would have blown his beastly whistle on the girl. All I can say—I think I speak for virtually the whole country—is that he deserves to choke on the pea.

Mr. Clive Soley: Will the Minister give way.

Mr. Waddington: Let me get on for a while. The right hon. Member for Small Heath went on for a long time. If necessary, I will come back to these matters.
Let us return to the substance of the debate. It would not be appropriate for me to go further without thanking the Select Committee on Home Affairs for its report. Its work was invaluable, and in our White Paper we demonstrated how many of the recommendations have been accepted and how they helped us to formulate our strategy.
We do not accept some matters touched on in the report. The Committee alleged that in 1982–83, the Home Office made a £6 million profit out of naturalisation fees and it said that the so-called profit should be used to make registration entitlements free.
As I explained in my interim response to the Committee's report on 28 July last year, there was no such profit, and, therefore, no such sum available for use in the way suggested. Paragraph 20 in the White Paper explains why that is so, and I shall explain further.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Waddington: No. I will do so later, but, in view of the length of the speech of the right hon. Member for Small Heath, I intend to make some headway.
The House will recall that on 1 April 1982 we changed from a system of payment on completion of applications to one of payment on the making of them. That led to total cash receipts of well over £10 million in 1982–83, of which nearly £4 million came from applications made in previous years and just over £7 million from new applications.
Operating costs in 1982–83 were £4·5 million, so there was a cash surplus of £6·5 million. However, the Committee overlooked the fact that the £7 million received in 1982–83 came from 96,000 new applications and was required to see them through to completion—to pay not only for work done on them in 1982–83, but for work to be done on them in subsequent years.
The applications made in earlier years brought in £3·79 million, but that sum was required for the work that had already been done by the Home Office—in effect, on credit. To put it another way, there was no money coming in during 1982–83 that was not tied to a corresponding liability. To suggest that a cash surplus in one year is a profit is rather like suggesting that a man who receives a single advance payment, in exchange for undertaking a five-year television servicing agreement is right to calculate his year one profit by setting off his costs in that year only against the lump sum received—entirely ignoring his liability to service the television in subsequent years.
The White Paper and the regulations before us are the results of a thorough review of the budgetary and accounting system, which was carried out with the aim of arriving at fees that were fair to the applicants and to the taxpayer. The new budgetary system is based on an assessment of the amount of work that each category of application involves and the cost of that work. That is equitable, because no one will be required to pay more than the average cost of processing his own category of application.
We should not have been able to make the reductions if we had not gone in for a tight control of costs. I emphasise that in the past two years costs have risen less than the rate of inflation. That, and the introduction of simplified processing methods and high productivity, have made the reductions possible.

Mr. Hanley: rose——

Mr. Waddington: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. It would be discourteous to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) to do so. I shall give way later if I have time.
On the matter of simplified processing, substantial reductions have been achieved in the costs of police inquiries by the introduction throughout the country of shortened inquiry procedures and pro forma reporting. The Government will continue to look for ways of reducing costs while maintaining satisfactory standards. I am also glad that we were able to accept the Committee's recommendation on the rate to be charged for police officers' time. The actual cost is now taken into account and not the rates charged to private employers.
Every effort has been made to keep costs generally to the minimum and to attribute to the naturalisation process only such costs as are properly attributable, and certainly not all those incurred in the running of the nationality


division. For instance, to the extent that management and policy staff are not engaged in the processing of applications, their cost is not charged to applicants. An important point that emphasises the equitable approach and makes nonsense of yet another passage in the speech of the right hon. Member for Small Heath is that, because fees are paid in advance, credit is given for notional interest. That will be found in the accounts, in annexes (c) and (d)of the White Paper.
There are some other important points to note. The effect of the new simplified tariff will be to direct the benefit of the reductions in fee levels towards families, and the greatest reduction will be felt where the burden on families is at present heaviest. I simply do not understand the nonsense uttered by the right hon. Gentleman, who was saying precisely the opposite of what the new regulations achieve. Where several members of the family are all seeking naturalisation, the reduction in fees may amount to £200 or more. In total, the new tariff represents an overall reduction of 17 per cent. for the body of applicants as a whole.

Mr. Greville Janner: rose——

Mr. Waddington: The Government have accepted the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee that the cost of unsuccessful applications should not be borne by the successful.

Mr. Janner: rose——

Mr. Waddington: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I am not to blame for the shortage of time.
Each of the new fees, however, includes an application fee of £10, which is not returnable if the application is refused or withdrawn. This represents a small contribution towards the cost of the work done on those applications. The Government have no intention of allowing fees to act as a deterrent to would-be applicants and recognise that to charge the full cost of the work done on unsuccessful applications could have such an effect. It is therefore considered right that the bulk of the costs arising from unsuccessful applications should be borne by the taxpayer, and that means a subsidy of some £300,000 in 1984–85.
I should just explain that for technical reasons the fees regulations have to distinguish between an application fee and a registration fee, but both have to be paid together on the submission of the application. So the reader must not be misled by the table in the schedule. To the fees there set out must be added the £10 referred to in regulation 2.

Mr. Janner: rose——

Mr. Waddington: I am sorry, but I shall not give way.

Mr. Janner: rose——

Mr. Waddington: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) knows that if the Minister does not give way, he cannot intervene.

Mr. Waddington: I have not spoken as long as the right hon. Member for Small Heath, who rarely touched on the order at all. It has been argued strongly that no fees should be paid by applicants in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement. This is something that the Government have looked at carefully, but our judgment is that concessionary fees for such applicants would be regarded as unfair by those whose circumstances

were only slightly better; and there would be considerable administrative difficulties in operating a concessionary scheme.

Mr. Janner: rose——

Mr. Waddington: I shall not give way.
So here are the new fee levels. Adult applicants for registration will be charged £55, a reduction of £15, or no less than 21 per cent. on the existing fee.

Mr. Janner: rose——

Mr. Waddington: The fee for naturalisation is reduced from £200 to £160 for a single person and there w ill be no additional charge for a husband and wife. That is a reduction of 41 per cent. for the joint naturalisation of a husband and wife. When an applicant for naturalisation is married to a British citizen, the fee is reduced from £70 to £55. If that is not a record of achievement, I do not know what is. The Opposition have never in their lives reduced fees, and that is why they are so cross.
The fee regulations are the result of the most comprehensive review of fee-setting arrangements that: has ever been undertaken. The Government have responded positively to the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee, and to the many other recommendations about nationality fees.
The new arrangements we have implemented will, of course, be kept under review to see whether they are capable of further improvement. If costs can be further reduced in due course, they will be.

Mr. Janner: rose——

Mr. Waddington: Most importantly, I believe that the new systems for budgeting and fee setting are fair and will be seen to be fair to applicants and taxpayers.

Mr. Denis Howell: What about Miss Budd?

Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman said, "What about Miss Budd?" I will tell him about Miss Budd, and he will regret ever having mentioned her. What upsets me about the right hon. Gentleman's approach is that it is so mean-minded. Unlike him, the majority of people have this issue in perspective.
Zola's grandfather was born here. Her South African-born father is a British citizen. That meant that he could come here frequently, and he did so. He exercised his right, because he was a British citizen, to bring his wife and daughter with him.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With a short debate, it is obvious that there will be only two speakers on this sensitive issue. I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely, the Minister should give way, because many central issues have been raised.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House knows the rules. It is for any hon. Member on his feet to decide whether to give way.

Mr. Waddington: I shall be as quick as possible. I understand that the right hon. Member for Small Heath spoke for 31 minutes. He has challenged me to reply to the questions asked about Zola Budd, and I shall do so.

Mr. Janner: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If anything is clear, it is that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Just a moment. I remind the House that the debate will finish at 11.30 pm and that such interruptions will prevent other hon. Members from having the opportunity to address the House.

Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that he would give way later. The question is whether "later" means after 11.30——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member knows that that is not a matter for me.

Mr. Waddington: Zola Budd's father came here, bringing his wife and daughter with him. Zola applied for registration under section 3, which gives the Secretary of State discretion to register a minor.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Waddington: She applied so that she could have the chance of running for Britain, if possible in this year's Olympic games. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was asked to give priority to handling Zola's application, and he did so, for obvious reasons.

Mr. Corbyn: rose——

Mr. Waddington: If she had been left in the queue, the delay would have denied her the opportunity of competing for a place. I do not have the slightest doubt that the cry then would have been that Home Office bureaucracy was depriving a 17-year old girl, possessed of an apparently exceptional talent that she wished to put at this country's disposal, of a great chance.

Mr. Janner: rose——

Mr. Waddington: It is now, of course, for the sporting authorities to judge Miss Budd's talent. The Government have not let bureaucracy stand in the way of them making that judgment.
The right hon. Member for Small Heath has the sheer effrontery——

Mr. Hoyle: rose——

Mr. Waddington: —to talk about this application when not so long ago he was pleased to write a foreword to a book called, "The Precious McKenzie Story" published by Pelham in 1975. This is how that foreword reads:
It was my privilege some years ago to be of some small service to him"—
Precious McKenzie—
when he was establishing himself as a British citizen. I have enjoyed the tremendous satisfaction of being present"—

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister, when describing Zola Budd's application, not to give details of when it was received?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it were out of order, I should have said so.

Mr. Waddington: —
when he has represented our country in sport, and when he has scored some of his greatest successes.
What utter humbug we have heard from the right hon. Member for Small Heath tonight, and how proud we in the Home Office should be——

Mr. Denis Howell: rose——

Mr. Waddington: —of giving this girl a chance to compete in the Olympic games.

Mr. Howell: The Minister will know that there is no——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way; he has finished his speech. Mr. David Alton.

Mr. David Alton: rose——

Mr. Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is no truth in anything the Minister has said about that matter. Had he given way I should have put the record straight, as I did in the Press Gallery today. There is no truth in the suggestion——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. David Alton.

Mr. David Alton: I listened with interest to what the Minister said. It takes us back to the debate on 5 March when we were considering these matters. I am sad that we do not have time to discuss the issues more fully. I suspect that part of the reason for the anger and frustration felt by the Opposition results from the fact that there is so little time left.
The Minister said this evening that the regulations would result in lower fees for the majority of people. I welcome that and believe that all hon. Members should welcome it. He also said that the regulations were a response to the Select Committee's report. In fairness it has to be said that the Select Committee made a number of other points to which the Minister has not responded this evening.
One of the matters about which the Select Committee complained, and to which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) referred, was that the accounting methods—creative accounting, some might call it—which talked about£6 million profit were at the heart of our discussions in the House in March and are at the core of what we are discussing this evening.
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants contends that the profit was real and was not concealed because of bookkeeping. The council says that the Minister has failed to take account of a grossly inaccurate estimate of applications in 1982 and 1983, which was used to inflate the fees from April 1982. It also claims that a windfall profit of £3·8 million has been written off and that the Government have failed to provide accounts for 1982–83 and are therefore able to deny the existence of profit for that year. The council says that if the old or new accounting systems were applied to 1982–83 it would be seen that the nationality operation clearly made a profit. That point is worth making in view of what has been said this evening about profit and loss. It is a shame that citizenship should be seen in terms of a profit and loss account.

Ms. Clare Short: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way in which the Minister talked about British citizenship, as though it was the same as renting a television set, belittles our country, our citizenship, the Government and everyone who seeks to apply for that citizenship?

Mr. Alton: The analogy with the television licence was one of the most unfortunate analogies that I have ever heard in the House. It was inappropriate to put citizenship into that context.
Citizenship is not a commodity like a special offer in a supermarket. It is not about discounts, driving a hard bargain or getting a good price. It should not be seen through the eyes of a profit and loss account. It devalues the currency of citizenship to link it in that unseemly way to television licences or to see it as part of a Klondike claim. However, that is what has happened since 1981, when 100,000 people have been scared into rushing into getting citizenship because they were frightened that if they did not apply they would lose all chance of being British citizens. Many people are worried that if they do not get their claim in before 1987 they will have no chance of getting citizenship. Many people genuinely cannot afford the chance to become British citizens.

Mr. Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the part of the city of Leicester that I represent many people cannot get citizenship now? They include Mr. Vasani, who is blind and unemployed, and Mr. Ruparelia, who has lost his job.[Interruption.] Much as Conservative Members may jeer at that, we are talking about human beings who are excluded from British nationality because of the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to follow the unanimous report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for me to present a list of my constituents in my part of Leicester——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have little time left. Such interventions prevent the debate from continuing.

Mr. Alton: The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) made the valuable point that for many individuals it is difficult to become a British citizen. If people are unemployed or on social security, it is difficult to meet the fees, whether it is the original £70 or the present £55.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that the Minister was being somewhat deceitful with the House when he referred to what had happened in the past without drawing our attention to the fact that in the past many individuals had no need to claim nationality? Children born in this country had the right to British citizenship. Many people felt secure about not needing to apply for registration, but under the present Government they have to do so.

Mr. Alton: I refer the House to an example of a constituent of mine who has been in this country for more than 40 years. He came to fight for this country in the last war. He came from Jamaica; he is a black citizen. He now has to apply for citizenship. He feels demeaned by that process. He says that he cannot afford to pay the fee. His children are here, and he is a British citizen. It is worth bearing in mind that a comparison should be made——

Sir John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to suggest that the Minister is being deceitful with the House, as the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) did?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear that.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: It was unparliamentary.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If any hon. Member was accusing the Minister of being deceitful with the House deliberately, that is not in order, but I did not hear it.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: But that is what the hon. Lady said.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Alton: It was not I who said it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not hear it. If any hon. Member made such an accusation it should be withdrawn, but I did not hear it.

Mr. Alton: It would be difficult for the hon. Lady to intervene again in my speech to make a withdrawal, so I shall continue.
It is outrageous that this country should charge £55 as a fee, and although I am pleased that it has been reduced from £70, it will still be difficult for many people to pay it. I give the example of a single parent wishing to register himself or herself and the child. It will now cost £110 instead of £105. There is also the matter of non-returnable deposits. Every applicant will have to apply by sending in a £10 deposit. Many people who apply unsuccessfully will lose their £10. That will add to the profit of the Home Office. What has that to do with citizenship?

Mr. Harry Cohen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Office has rejected the reconuneridation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that those on supplementary benefit and those on family income supplement should not have to pay any fee? That affects many of my constituents, and those of many other hon. Members, who want citizenship. Is it not a disgrace that the Home Office is discriminating against the poor?

Mr. Alton: That is the point that I have been making. I think that this speech will go down as having had a record number of interventions. I shall try to finish rapidly.
The fees that are charged in other countries are nothing like those charged here. In the United States, for instance, the fee is £22, in Canada it is £5, and in Australia it is nothing, and that is what it should be here. It should cost nothing for people to become British citizens.
No hon. Member could resent Zola Budd having obtained citizenship. I wish her well. However, I want the same right for my constituents and for those of every other hon. Member. Otherwise, the system of nationality application will be brought into disrepute. It is important that the Government make it clear that the rules that were applied in the Zola Budd case will apply in any other case.
It is also important, in view of the other issues that this raises about apartheid in South Africa, that the Government reiterate their commitment to the Gleneagles agreement and their condemnation of apartheid in South Africa and of those countries which discriminate against some sportsmen and sportswomen purely because of the colour of their skin.

Mr. Corbyn: Is it not disgraceful that the Minister should have spoken at great length about the Zola Budd case and apparently ignored the plight of many who are waiting nationality applications and, above all, failed to inform the House what discussions, negotiations and correspondence went on with the Daily Mail, its editor and the people in South Africa before Zola Budd arrived here, and to reveal the date on which her application was first received by his office and why it was processed so quickly? Should not this information now be made public?

Mr. Alton: I agree with that. It is unfortunate that the Minister did not give way so that he could answer such


questions. I shall happily give way if the Minister wants to reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

Mr. Robert Litherland: rose——

Mr. Alton: I am afraid that I do not have time.
These nationality fees and regulations create great insecurity in the black community. If the Government and the Minister do not believe that they can give back to those who paid into the profit and loss account the £6 million which the Committee estimated was paid in nationality fees, perhaps they could return it in kind. It is time that the Government looked again at the way in which section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 operates towards non-Commonwealth citizens, particularly the black citizens, in our inner city areas. If they did so, some of this money in the profit and loss account could be used to the advantage of immigrants—many of them fourth and fifth generation citizens.

Mr. Hoyle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister should not have talked about the petty objection to Zola Budd coming here, when there have been objections from the Church of England, the Bishop of Leicester and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants—all people who understand? What they are demanding is equal treatment for other immigrants. We have not had that guarantee from the Minister.

Mr. Alton: Like the British Nationality Act 1981, which in the view of the Church of England Synod offends all Christian ethics, these regulations are totally unacceptable not only to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) but to myself, my hon. Friends and my colleagues in the SDP. For that reason, we shall vote against the Government.

Mr. John Carlisle: We have been treated to the most disgraceful episodes on the Opposition side of the House, and a gross violation of the House——

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4 (Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. (Procedure)).

The House proceeded to a Division:

Mr. Janner: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there no way in which the Chair can protect Back Benchers against the Government Front Bench using so much time in such a short, vital debate on an issue of crucial importance to our constituents when so many people have been forced to give up their right to British nationality because of the regulations which neither side of the House has had the chance to discuss? Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask for your protection for the sake of those of our constituents whom we come here to serve.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that the rules under which these matters are taken are drawn up by the House; they are not drawn up by me. My job is to see that the rules are observed.

Mr. Corbyn: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister, in refusing to give way, also to refuse to answer questions on a matter of great public importance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Whether or not the Minister gives way is not a matter for me.

Mr. Hoyle: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) not have announced his interest and his connection with South Africa?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. Gentleman mind repeating his point of order?

Mr. Hoyle: (seated and covered): Should the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) not have announced his interest, particularly his connections with South Africa?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a matter for the hon. Gentleman concerned, not for me.

Mr. John Carlisle: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask your advice as to whether it is in order for an hon. Member to make a gross accusation against me as to my interests in South Africa. To put the record straight, I have none, Sir, but I think that it is a gross violation of the use of the House that such an accusation should have been made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In all the noise I did not hear all the exchanges that were taking place.

The House having divided: Ayes 84, Noes 165.

Division No. 247]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Ashdown, Paddy
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Haynes, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Barron, Kevin
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Home Robertson, John


Beith, A. J.
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hoyle, Douglas


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Bruce, Malcolm
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Janner, Hon Greville


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Johnston, Russell


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clarke, Thomas
Kennedy, Charles


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Kirkwood, Archibald


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

 
Craigen, J. M.
Litherland, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dalyell, Tam
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Marek, Dr John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Deakins, Eric
Michie, William


Dixon, Donald
Nellist, David


Dobson, Frank
Parry, Robert


Dormand, Jack
Patchett, Terry


Douglas, Dick
Pavitt, Laurie


Dubs, Alfred
Penhaligon, David


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Pike, Peter


Eastham, Ken
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Prescott, John


Fatchett, Derek
Redmond, M.


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Rooker, J. W.


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


George, Bruce
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Godman, Dr Norman
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Skinner, Dennis






Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Soley, Clive
Welsh, Michael


Steel, Rt Hon David



Strang, Gavin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. David Winnick.


Tinn, James





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Couchman, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Crouch, David


Amess, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Ancram, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Tom
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Ashby, David
Dunn, Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Durant, Tony


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Evennett, David


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Baldry, Anthony
Farr, John


Batiste, Spencer
Favell, Anthony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bellingham, Henry
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Benyon, William
Fox, Marcus


Berry, Sir Anthony
Franks, Cecil


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Freeman, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gale, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Galley, Roy


Bottomley, Peter
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodlad, Alastair


Brinton, Tim
Gow, Ian


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gregory, Conal


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bruinvels, Peter
Ground, Patrick


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Jeremy


Butterfill, John
Harvey, Robert


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Carttiss, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, J.


Chope, Christopher
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Henderson, Barry


Colvin, Michael
Hickmet, Richard


Conway, Derek
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Simon
Hirst, Michael


Cope, John
Holt, Richard





Howard, Michael
Moore, John


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Neale, Gerrard


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Neubert, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Newton, Tony


Hunter, Andrew
Nicholls, Patrick


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Norris, Steven


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Onslow, Cranley
 

Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Ottaway, Richard


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Page, John (Harrow W)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Pawsey, James


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Knowles, Michael
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Lang, Ian
Powell, William (Corby)


Latham, Michael
Powley, John


Lee, John (Pendle)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rathbone, Tim


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lightbown, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lilley, Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Rowe, Andrew


Lord, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lyell, Nicholas
Silvester, Fred


McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Soames, Hon Nicholas


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Speller, Tony


Maclean, David John
Spencer, Derek


Major, John
Steen, Anthony


Malins, Humfrey
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maples, John
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mates, Michael
Trippier, David


Mather, Carol
Waddington, David


Maude, Hon Francis
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Wheeler, John


Merchant, Piers
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Meyer, Sir Anthony



Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Tellers for the Noes:


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)



Moate, Roger

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Leptospirosis

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for coming to the House this evening to discuss the—to me—very interesting subject of leptospirosis, and cattle-associated leptospirosis in particular. We can both heave a sigh of relief that we are here at a modest hour and not early in the morning, as has been the case of late.
My hon. Friend will know that among the many important functions—and there are many—which go on in Hereford, the Public Health Laboratory Service has its leptospirosis reference unit. It is very much as a consequence of the work done by that unit, and by Dr. Sheena Waitkins in particular, that I have sought to utilise this opportunity to draw attention to the concern which should be shown in the dairy sector of the farming community in respect of one particular strain of leptospirosis—cattle-associated leptospirosis.
In this matter the interface between this House and departmental responsibility is complex. The disease is one which affects cattle, with associated problems of cattle suffering abortion and milk loss, together with financial loss for farmers. It is also capable of being easily transmitted to man. The evidence points to a greater level of infection than was previously apparent.
My purpose in drawing attention to the various interrelated problems is, first, to increase agricultural awareness of the disease; secondly to increase medical awareness of the condition; and, thirdly to sound out my hon. Friend—who is the Minister with particular responsibility for animal health matters—on the possibility of developing a programme of containment of the disease at source, that is to say, to deal with before it leaves the infected cattle.
I raised the matter with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, who gave me a somewhat disappointing reply on 27 March. He said that he was
satisfied that GPs have an adequate knowledge of the risks of the disease, especially in dairying areas."—[Offical Report, 27 March 1984; Vol. 57, c. 133.]
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has no responsibility for the replies of a Minister in another Department, and I would not ask her to comment on that reply. It is worthwhile noting, however, that the disease is being discovered by those medical practitioners who have become attuned to look for cattle-associated leptospirosis. Other doctors may mistake it for flu.
One Herefordshire milk producer, with a herd of 130 milkers, contracted human leptospirosis or CAL. His herd became infected in 1982, and he contracted the disease. He became very poorly. Because the illness was not like ordinary flu, his wife called in the doctor. The doctor said that it was a bad case of flu. He said, "It's just a case of sweating it out." The next day, the cowman went down with the disease and a standby cowman was called in to help with the milking. Four days later, the standby cowman, too, fell ill. Because of the dairy connection, his doctor, who lived in Hereford, suspected brucellosis, and treated him with penicillin. Because penicillin deals with CAL as well as brucellosis, the cowman recovered

speedily. When his blood sample was sent to the reference unit and showed leptospirosis, Dr. Waitkins became aware of the problem. She went out to the farm, took blood samples and found that the producer and his cowman had the same problem. A few days later, after taking tablets and penicillin, they had begun to recover.
That milk producer said,
I have never had anything like it before. The NFU and the farmworkers' union should press for urgent research into this disease, and if eradication is shown to be possible then they should be supported to the hilt.
He had had a blinding headache, worse than anything he had ever known before. It was so bad that he could not bear to touch a single hair. He was miserably feverish—hot and cold—and poured sweat in torrents to no avail. One can understand his sentiments. Two years later, he still has to wear a woolly hat to keep his head warm, and so does his cowman.
Today, when the dairy industry is under severe pressure, it is relevant that the economic losses which the disease can cause are also severe. One farmer in the Welsh borders with 250 cows lost some £11,000 in 18 months in 1980 and 1981. That was accounted for by 21 dead calves, half the normal milk yield from 10 cows that calved early, replacements for two dead cows which had developed chills while ill, lactation loss from 80 cows—the average loss being two and a half litres for 150 days—and milk from 80 cows held back for three days following antibiotic treatment.
Another producer near Ludlow recently aggregated the losses that he had suffered at about £15,000 on his herd of 230 cows. Such losses are in no way inconsequential.
A logical progression from the human and economic factors that I have outlined must take one to the conclusion that prevention is better than cure. But one might ask whether there is in fact a real problem to prevent.
As brucellosis recedes into the past because of the extremely successful eradication of the problem, the wider extent of the human aspect of CAL is becoming more apparent. It has certainly been cloaked before. In a recent written answer I was told:
The increase in cattle-associated infections"—
of leptospirosis—
in 1983 is thought to be due largely to increased awareness of the disease in the farming community and not to an increase in the disease in herds."—[Official Report, 20 March 1984; Vol, 56, c. 424.]
So far, so good, but the work done by Dr. Waitkins of the leptospirosis reference unit points to the probability that at least one third of Britain's dairy herds are infected or show serological evidence of past infection. That shows that the problem could be far more serious than has hitherto been appreciated. In economic terms, that means that one third of dairy farmers will at some time stand to lose a lot of money. There seems to be an incipient problem which, if the experience of New Zealand is anything to go by, could increase. The rate of infection there is 90 per cent., and climatic conditions are not dissimilar to ours.
Our Herefordshire milk producer who suffered asked for urgent action. In New Zealand it was the farmers' wives who showed the greatest anxiety. It was the women's division of the New Zealand Federated Farmers, the equivalent of the women's section of the National Farmers Union, which built up the pressure for action. Action is being taken and vaccination is becoming much more frequent. Indeed, as many as 50 per cent. of cows


in New Zealand are now vaccinated. Hitherto, vaccines have not been available in the United Kingdom although they have been made here. I am given to understand, however, that vaccines are now available for British herds. That is encouraging news. I do not want to pre-empt anything that my hon. Friend the Minister might want to say, but, as Dr. Waitkins put it:
Once there is a vaccine for animals then the human problem should be reduced. Whilst vaccines don't totally eracicate leptospira, treated cows become such low rate shedders that their urine does not contain enough bacteria for humans to be at risk.
New Zealand is well ahead of the United Kingdom in the war against leptospirosis—as it should be with its 480 cases in humans which are notified each year. Although we have so far examined only the tip of the iceberg with our 40 cases last year and 100 cases in the past six years, it is probable that there are many more unnoticed and therefore unnotified cases. I do not want our problem to grow to the level of New Zealand's. I am therefore asking my hon. Friend to do all that she can to promote understanding of the problem and to develop a vaccination programme, as the more vaccination that is carried out, the cheaper will be the cost to dairy farmers.
One of the inhibitory factors so far has been the cost of vaccine. I should also like the Ministry's advice service to draw farmers' attention to the economic benefits of vaccination. The present anticipated cost of £4 per cow per year seems a good investment when compared with possible losses of £10,000, as has been experienced in several farms. I should also like there to be the provision of a continuous reporting system on Leptospira in the farming community, which involves collaboration between the central veterinary unit, the communicable disease surveillance unit and the Leptospira reference unit in Hereford.
This would have the effect of broadening the base of knowledge of what is going on in the farming community and determining from that the direction that further research ought to take in order to get a full understanding of the nature of the disease and what needs to be done.
Action now can prevent much bovine and human misery, and I will draw my remarks tonight to a close by giving the last word to that disease-hit Hereford dairy farmer, who said:
We were told that all three of us had only a mild leptospirosis problem, but you can take it from me even the mild attack was agony. Anyone who comes in contact with cows should keep Leptospira in mind if their doctor blandly tells them they have 'flu.
That is the nature of the problem. It is the reality of the interface between the two areas, and I believe that the answer lies in terms of animal health, to get at the problem at source.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) for raising this subject tonight. It is, I am sure, a reflection of his great interest in animal health matters generally. No doubt this stems from representing a part of the country with a very strong and significant agricultural and, in particular, livestock industry. The House will have been pleased to have had the opportunity of listening to the points which have been made by him.
I am particularly glad to respond, because it affords me the opportunity to describe some of the important work which has been conducted in this country over recent years in relation to leptospirosis.
It might be of help to the House if I first described certain aspects of the disease in this country and its development in recent years. Over the last 20 years leptospirosis which is caused by leptospira hardjo, has become recognised in Great Britain as a very' common bacterial infection of cattle which may cause outbreaks of mastitis and is a cause of abortion and premature calving.
The problem is not unique to the United Kingdom. It is also found in many other countries, including the United States of America, Australia and Canada. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it has also been widespread in New Zealand, where he noted that at one time over 90 per cent. of herds were infected.
In the context of research into methods of control, I would like to offer a word of praise to the scientists and the veterinarians working in my Department. They have been actively studying this disease over recent years. Without wishing to complicate the issue, it may, for example, Mr. Deputy Speaker, interest you to know that leptospirosis is caused by a bacterial parasite of which more that 160 types have been identified in farm livestock and other mammals, including man.
It is difficult to estimate the economic significance of the disease in cattle. There may indeed be infection in a herd without actual clinical disease. However, if the disease manifests itself clinically through abortion, premature calving or mastitis, quite clearly there is bound to be an effect on farm output and productivity.
This brings me to the human aspects, about which my hon. Friend has spoken. There are economic effects here too because the disease in humans is closely associated with those who work with cattle. More generally, in relation to the disease in humans, it is true to say that during 1983—a fact to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention—the number of people suffering from the effects of leptospirosis increased. A significant proportion of these cases were linked to disease in cattle. In most of these cases the disease was not serious, causing only a mild fever. The increase in the number of reported cases in humans in 1983 is perhaps due in part to the increased incidence of the disease in cattle. On the other hand, I do not wish to give my hon. Friend the impression that this is not a cause for concern, because it certainly is. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it would alleviate the situation a great deal if the trend of disease incidence in cattle were reversed.
Perhaps more significant has been the increased awareness among the farming community, especially those working with dairy cattle. In this context, an effective article on the subject appeared in the fanning journal, Dairy Farmer, in June last year with much reference to the work of Dr. Sheena Waitkins, to whom my hon. Friend paid tribute.
The heart of the matter is how it might be practicable to control the disease in cattle. Not only would that be important for the dairy and beef industries but it would help to deal with the human health problems.
The research carried out under Ministry supervision has centred on three possible ways of controlling the disease—first, a build-up of immunity; secondly, the use of dihydrostreptomycin, known as DSM; and thirdly, vaccination.
There is evidence that a natural immunity builds up following exposure to the disease, but it is not known whether the immunity is lifelong. Furthermore, cattle may excrete the infection in their urine and thus provide a source of infection for other cattle and, indeed, farm workers. Even if the transmission and subsequent immunity were guaranteed, manipulating herd management to facilitate infection of young stock may not always be convenient and herds free from infection would always remain at risk.
DSM is the most effective drug for the elimination of the infection from the kidneys, but, although experiments in the laboratory appear effective, failures have been recorded under field conditions.
The use of hardjo vaccine, to which my hon. Friend alluded, is without doubt an effective way of protecting cattle against leptospirosis. In reaching that conclusion, important trials supervised by the Ministry were conducted in Scotland between 1977 and 1981. The dead vaccine afforded a high degree of protection against the disease and all the evidence is that this is the only practical method of control. In New Zealand, where vaccine has been available on a voluntary basis for some time, there has been considerable success in reducing problems associated with leptospirosis. In this country, vaccine has been available commercially since June last year.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will be relieved to know that the demand for vaccine has been very great, although there is as yet no statistical evidence to show what proportion of the national herd is vaccinated.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend taking any steps to try to develop an awareness of the percentage of the national herd that is being vaccinated? Is there any mechanism for ascertaining that, so that progress with vaccination may be measured?

Mrs. Fenner: My hon. Friend raises an important point, but when I give a rough estimate of the incidence of leptospirosis in this country he may concede that ascertaining the level of vaccination exactly is not yet so valid here as in New Zealand, where more than 90 per cent. of the herd had leptospirosis. As I have said, however, the evidence is that demand for vaccine has been very great. As we regard this method as the only practical form of control, that is very good news indeed.
We have never made vaccination compulsory, and I could not accept that this would be appropriate or even practicable, for a number of reasons. My hon. Friend is

probably aware that no other country has adopted this course, including New Zealand, where the incidence of leptospirosis was very high.
My hon. Friend may also be interested to know that no British Government have ever introduced compulsory vaccination to deal with any livestock or poultry disease. It would, of course, be very expensive for the industry, having regard to the fact that a substantial proportion of the herds in the country are free from disease, which is in exact contradiction to what happened in New Zealand. The application of vaccine across the board would give rise to considerable costs, and would represent in our view too much of a broad brush approach. On the other hand, in those herds where the disease has been diagnosed, the owner now has the opportunity to protect his animals through the purchase and application of vaccine.
My hon. Friend referred to the cost. I do not think that the sum he mentioned is costly to ensure such a protection. The market for vaccine is a competitive one, with two major manufacturers producing vaccine, and perhaps more introducing a product on to the market. I suppose that the cost of such vaccine must be measured against the likely economic losses, which I have already described. Such considerations are for the individual owner to bear in mind in reaching what he regards as an appropriate conclusion for his circumstances.
One could suggest that voluntary vaccination is not helpful if one farmer applies it while another does not. From the animal health point of view, this is not so, because that vaccinated herd is protected. The farmer who decides not to vaccinate has to bear in mind two considerations. The first is that his herd is vulnerable. The second is that, if disease occurs in his cattle, his farm workers, and indeed he himself, are also at risk. For all those reasons, I very much hope that farmers will recongise the benefits of vaccination and protect their stock, which will in turn provide protection for those most at risk to the transmission of disease to human beings.
I hope that what I have said will reassure the House that the Government are well aware of the problems to which leptospirosis may give rise. In addition, my remarks will have indicated what we regard as the most appropriate way forward—a way in which the individual herd owner will be able to decide on the most appropriate course in the light of his particular circumstances.
I conclude my remarks by expressing once again my gratitude to my hon. Friend for raising this important subject.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Twelve o' clock.